On Friday 03 November 2008 8:38 AM Bo writes to Horse: <snip>
> Secondly, you said: "SOM is no metaphysical system after being > subsumed by the MOQ. " As far as I'm aware, even if the MOQ does > subsume SOM (it doesn't - it's a competing Intellectual pattern > of Value and the MOQ is in opposition to it) this doesn't alter > SOM's existence as a metaphysical system. After having taken over SOM's metaphysical rank (the "M") and made the remaining S/O distinction a sub-set the MOQ is in no opposition to SOM, because there is no SOM ... ..except if one insist that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern, but then one has made the MOQ a SOM subsidiary where "intellect" = mind and become a SOM idealist who claims that all is mind. Again, by raising these objections you at least see what's at stake. What you said to Platt (about reason as the SOM) shows that you understand the SOL issue too. Your seeing it as a threat however?? Bo Hi Bo, Horse and All, Hey! Diddle, diddle, The cat and the fiddle. The cow jumped over the Moon! The little dog laughed to see such sport! The dish ran away with the spoon! I appeal to MOQ for verification for a statement. SOM has played me false. I trust my judgment about MOQ. I appeal to DQ (consciousness) for verification. The fly in the ointment is that the statement of verification is SQ, a conceptualization whose nature is not seen as analogy or metaphor. I learn to be mechanical through expressions I learned at my mother¹s knee, and the glasses that culture hands me. IMO There is a resonance from the big bang between my brain and the evolutionary levels. Moq states that the words I use to describe this resonance are only analogies or metaphors. When I forget the resonance, evolution becomes literal SQ. I am no longer conscious. I am mechanical and will act on what pushes my buttons. Politicians know how to push buttons and I go to war against my brother. Love, hope, hatred, intellect, emotion, movement, evolution are known in experience. When I conceptualize that experience into words, the conscious experience is conceptualized. I define it. I use defined words for what I am saying and others can see how close the definition comes to their experience. Analogy and Metaphor are replaced by literal definition. The caveat is that I forget myself and let the words mechanically speak for me. Everybody forgets. I forget, I become mechanical in pretending that words say it all. The whole self participates in that definition by forgetting the level of their origin, e.g. intellectual level is called mind. My mechanical actions become more complicated as I grow older with experience. E.G. political parties! Only heroes act from their own awareness. MOQ is outside of definition when you consider a Conscious/Mechanical duality in experience. To keep DQ undefined and SQ defined, there has to be an appeal to consciousness or awareness to produce a definition. How can we discuss them? IMO Pirsig has successfully argued that an experience of evolution is proper, and the soul/body dichotomy is a misrepresentation of DQ/SQ experience. Bo¹s description of SOL accents Pirsig¹s view that the soul/body is a misrepresentation of experience. The MOQ describes a law of consciousness/self-awareness, initially evolving. The inorganic law of gravity stands apart from the Organic law of the life. The law of indefinable consciousness, from the law of SOL (intellect). As seen from the posts on the list, it is easier to follow mechanical definitions, than to always be aware of the undefined in experience. I forget I am indefinable! IMO. Joe On 11/3/08 8:38 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi again Horse. > > 2 Nov. you wrote: > >> First off you asked: "Show me one pattern you deem intellectual that's >> not a S/O derivative." > >> According to Pirsig: Annotation129 (Lila's Child): > > "I've always thought this is incorrect because many forms of > intellect do not have a subject-object construction. These > include logic itself, mathematics, computer programming > languages, and, I believe some primitive languages (although I > can't remember what they are)." > >> To the above I would probably add Fuzzy Systems, Chaos and Quantum >> Theory. > > Admittedly, there are concepts that don't fit the S/O matrix, but nor do > they fit intellect lest everything - Quality included - is intellect. Beauty, > aesthetics, music, logic, intuition ....etc. (I once had a list of concepts > people have suggested as alternative "MOX" up through the years) but > Quality encompasses them all. > > Pirsig said the above long before the trouble over intellect began ...to > bother him, later came the PT letter in which he more or less backed > the SOL. > > About mathematics I have written many times. Calculation is > something that humankind has done intuitively long before the 4th. > level. Only with the Greeks was it called mathematics and elevated to > an academical discipline whose purpose it was to prove > OBJECTIVELY why the various ways of calculating and building by > using intuitive geometry were eternally TRUE. Very much S/O. > > The same goes for "computer programming languages). Language is > as old as mankind, but only with intellect did it become symbols that > symbolize something else and as such S/O to the core. > > Regarding fuzzy systems, chaos and Quantum theory. The first and > second are varieties of logic and as such comparable with the said > "unassimilable" concepts. Quantum Mech. as well as Relativity are > scientific theories; Observation of objective nature that subjective > theories are supposed to systematize. > >> Secondly, you said: "SOM is no metaphysical system after being >> subsumed by the MOQ. " As far as I'm aware, even if the MOQ does >> subsume SOM (it doesn't - it's a competing Intellectual pattern of >> Value and the MOQ is in opposition to it) this doesn't alter SOM's >> existence as a metaphysical system. > > After having taken over SOM's metaphysical rank (the "M") and made > the remaining S/O distinction a a sub-set the MOQ is in no opposition > to SOM, because there is no SOM ... ..except if one insist that the > MOQ is an intellectual pattern, but then one has made the MOQ a > SOM subsidiary where "intellect" = mind and become a SOM idealist > who claims that all is mind. > > Again, by raising these objections you at least see what's at stake. > What you said to Platt (about reason as the SOM) shows that you > understand the SOL issue too. Your seeing it as a threat however?? > > 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/
