On Wednesday 24 September 2008 11:45 PM Bo writes to Joe: <snip>
> Language exists. The assertion that evolution exists indicates > undefined levels in existence. S undefined individual, O defined > Object. Another division which describes behavior is Conscious, > undefined behavior, and Mechanical, defined behavior. I am > mostly unconscious in what I believe, and your treatise deserves > careful consideration. Even more cryptic. Bo Hi Bo and all, Analogies for a DQ/SQ metaphysics can focus on the undefined/defined aspects of DQ/SQ. The analogy I am thinking of in the above statement is a Conscious/Mechanical analogy as suggested by Pirsig¹s statement that ³culture hands us a set of glasses.² What I learned at my mother¹s knee turns into an unconscious-mechanical model which I use throughout my life as the motivation for my behavior without learning anything new. I go to school to learn a few things more, but mostly my behavior is not Conscious but Mechanical. I mechanically accept a few ways of behaving that I am taught are right, e.g. SOM, Body/soul, matter/mind. IMO Magnus in his paper wanted to suggest an analogy for DQ in the inorganic level. He called it ³The Big Bang² which resonates as an analogy throughout all the levels of evolution. Some identify the Big Bang as God and lose sight of the analogy. In your own thought you suggest a meta-level MOQ which supports the explanation of SOL. IMO this suggests that the S of SOL has evolved further. The problem is hard to envision, and the solution even harder to enunciate through analogies or metaphors. I am confident that the enlightened heroes throughout the ages reached a higher level of Consciousness. Their words and behavior are once removed analogies to the Big Bang analogy, resulting in models for the rest of us. Joe On 9/24/08 11:45 PM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Joe > > 23 Sep. you wrote: > >> Hi Magnus, Bo and All, >> Magnus, the gentleness of your generous open-heart approach is very >> appealing and special! > > Yes, Magnus can be ... mellow ...at times ;-) > >> IMO DQ cannot be an agent of change. DQ is an >> order in existence. That is why no rational explanation can be found >> to capture the workings of DQ. > > The dynamic/static "interaction" in the MOQ resembles the > mind/matter one in SOM, intricately connected yet worlds apart (only > not creating.any paradoxes that I know) consequently you are both > right and wrong regarding DQ as agent of change. > > But over to the darwinist/creationist dispute that Pirsig claims the MOQ > resolves by making it an intellectual versus social level struggle and > moreover that the issue they bicker about is the biological level out of > the inorganic. > >> Evolution describes levels in existence. It is useless to ask how! > > I agree. The biological level out of the inorganic is no more or less > "irrational" (i.e. inexplicable by intellect) than the 3rd. out of the 2 nd. > or > the 4th. out of the 3rd. MOQ simply says that all levels grow in > complexity, and that a complex (dynamic) pattern provides the > stepping stone for the next Q development. > >> Only the undefined individual has that experience which can only be >> communicated by analogy or metaphor. Yet that Subjective part of the >> individual is experienced. > > You are "deep" at times and I'm not always sure if your statements are > MOQ or SOM. > >> SOM is the false assertion that mind is separate from matter and >> definable. Aristotle asserts that the mind abstracts the ³essence² >> from an image and gives it ³intentional² existence in a mind, a word. >> MOQ asserts that mind does not exist apart from matter, only the >> individual Subject exists. > > You know "your" Aristotle and this sounds most plausible, wish Ham > understood that his Essentialism is straight from Aristotle's > >> Language exists. The assertion that evolution exists indicates >> undefined levels in existence. S undefined individual, O defined >> Object. Another division which describes behavior is Conscious, >> undefined behavior, and Mechanical, defined behavior. I am mostly >> unconscious in what I believe, and your treatise deserves careful >> consideration. > > Even more cryptic. > > Bo > > > > > > > > > > > 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/ 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/
