Hi again Andre. 30 Sep. you wrote:
> Point taken Bodvar, and thank you for responding to my entry. First of all, sorry for saying that I had read your intro, I had but only superficially so I did not notice that you were the one who mentioned my name, in fact it sounded as if we had been in touch before. About reading other people's posts superficially it's an "illness" that befalls long-time participants and make them start on their own train of thoughts long before ending the said reading, so most of it is not really taken in. > So the way I understand it: there is difference of opinion of what > comprises the levels ie inorg, org, soc and intel PoV's. That is: what > belongs where, what is understood by that, where are the boundaries, > where do they overlap etc etc? So now I'm going to be a real pain in > the arse and ask...(in the hope it will not reel you more): where > excactly are the differences of opinion? I thought Pirsig was > reasonably clear on those At first- back in the nineties - there was much about where things belonged, I remember an endless thread about what a throne (chair) is, however in my questionable wisdom I've found that the MOQ isn't meant to answer such things. If the said throne is aggregate of inorganic and social quality only complicates things, the intellectual level's sciences do a much better job here, the MOQ's scope is infinitely greater. Then the various levels' definitions have been a long and winding road. At first it was the inorganic level where people invented sub levels and diagrams and tables galore (mostly quantum physics buff, Doug Renselle) The biological level is the only one that almost all understand intuitively. The social level was also a bone of much contention, another Dutchman, Wim Nusselder had a lot to say about it ... as a "symbol" level I seem to remember. Yes, LILA is reasonably clear on the three lower levels, but on the 4th...phew! > I have learned from NLP that people can be working on the same issues > year after year and when you get them together and ask them to define > the issues... they are often in complete disagreement/ complete > mis-understanding with eachother each having their own interpretations > (note that this does not necessarily upset the baking of the cake). So > my 2nd question is: is there agreement on the disagreements?!! A most apt question ...is there agreement on the disagreements? In my case I claim that I understand every last bit of my opponents (on the intellectual issue) while they fail to understand my point, namely that the SOL (intellect=the S/O distinction) was Phaedrus' original idea and that half of LILA promotes it. You see SA immediately "warned" you about asking Bodvar anything. > Ahh I must have had about 2000 students asking me whether I liked China > , if I can use chopsticks and if I like Chinese food. Please bear with > me Discuss, I do have ideas and like to contribute even if they miss > the point sometimes and am reluctant to go over 6 years of entries to > find out where everyone is ( I have had quality moments after huge > missers myself) a point Pirsig makes in one of his annotations in LC. > Sometimes an absolutely stupid remark can trigger an insight and of > course sometimes even the taste of a madeleine or a particular step on > the pavement (I am hinting at Marcel Proust of course) can trigger > wonderful trains of thought. Wise words. One question I would have liked to ask regarding China is about language, but then there surely are several languages. However, it elated me that you know Marcel Proust's "Au Recherche ..." Bodvar PS > Nil Desperandum Illigitimus Carburundum Nor do I know Latin, but I googled it and ... no chance! Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
