Bo: We are in the strange situation that you seemingly defend LILA regarding the MOQ as an intellectual pattern (a subjective "menu" about Q-reality "out there"). While I defend ZAMM's
And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken before in the history of Western thought, went straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity which is independent of the two. "Neither part of mind ..." means just what I said; in the MOQ the mind/matter, subject/object or any derivatives thereof are abolished, this aggregate is relegated the role of its 4th. level. Thus saying that the MOQ is a thought has no relevance inside the MOQ. Ron: Saying that it is a static pattern of value cerainly does. If the MoQ can be written about, thought about and communicated, it is a static pattern of value, Just as SOM. MoQ dissolves S/O by saying they are both static patterns of value. Both the menu and the reality we percieve. SOM typically understands that "entities" and "entites understood" are the same in objective reason and are assumed as reality itself. much the way you posit MoQ as being reality itself when MoQ specifically states as a core tenet that reality, Quality, is dynamic and may not be defined nor understood less it become static. This is why you need SOL so you may once again feel that what you understand is what "is". When what "is" is a static pattern of the dynamic unknowable. This unknowable runs against your grain in contrast to the certainty you require in your definitions and logic traditionally used to understand such concepts. Ron: > From the persective of SOM, MoQ IS a logical meta-level as far as the > classical formation of logical systems goes. Bo: You alternate between the most apt considerations and nonsense. >From the perspective of SOM (intellect) the MOQ is another metaphysics in the classical Aristotelian sense "a theory about reality" and will remain there till kingdom comes.. Ron; > Alas, MoQ is no classical logical system Bo: The MOQ it surely is no subject/object system, but every bit as logical. Ron: Not logical in the traditional analytical sense in which you define the term and expect it to conform to. Logic and reason are understood by us and defined by traditional SOM values. In your own terms, you are using SOM intellect to define MoQ, which brings us right back to square one, the redefinition of SOM in MoQ terms. Ron; > and as seen from the MoQ perspective, SOM and MoQ are one of many menus > in an autopoietic logical system. As Pirsig stated, it takes MoQ off > the logical chess board by challenging the very chess board, pieces and > rules, the very fabric of the game. Bo: As said LILA may say that the MOQ is another "menu"*) but Phaedrus of ZAMM said that the menu/reality duality is S/O and part of "intellect"'s repertoire. The MOQ isn't removed from the logical chessboard (that wouldn't be more that a childish tantrum) after pointing out the paradoxes of the S/O premises it shows that its DQ/SQ premises dissolves the said paradoxes-platypis Ron: The menu/reality is the s/o duality, but you must admit, it's fault lie in the fact that is was /reality dominate, in so much that it denied the existence of any menu what-so-ever. The MoQ IS indeed removed from SOM's logic. Call it a childish tantrum if you need to but thats what it does.. The s/o paradox was a logical philosophical paradox not an objectivly scientific one. Ron: > Thus those who speak in this sort of logical expression are interpreted > by classical logic as paradoxal for this method uses self refferential > statements. Bo: Are you (in your newfangled academical style) saying that the MOQ seen from SOM looks like a subjective "theory"? In that case no wonder because almost all participants of this forum promotes that view. I.e. they haven't moved one iota out of SOM. Regrettably Ron: It appears that way to you because you maintain an SOM viewpoint when it comes to logic and reason (as noted above). I think in many ways, you have created SOL to explain MoQ in this fashion because you are unable to make that Gestalt shift in logic. Note the Zmm quote you posted: And finally: Phædrus, following a path that to his knowledge had never been taken before in the history of Western thought, went straight between the horns of the subjectivity-objectivity dilemma and said Quality is neither a part of mind, nor is it a part of matter. It is a third entity which is independent of the two. Pirsig defines Quality as a third "entity" a clear denotation of classic essential logic. When Quality in Lila is not an entity at all in fact it is'nt anything we can convey except statically. Bo, You have to look at the work as a whole, if you cling to ZMM, and reject Lila, you cling to objectivism and view Lila as Subjective. When they are both static patterns of Quality. This should stand out as a hint as to the perspective you take. optimstically -Ron 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/ Hello Bo, > Ron: > The Self referential logical statements you are referring to apply to > a allopoietic systems of thought or SOM. MoQ is based on An > autopoietic system. "a self-referential situation is the one of > autopoiesis, as the logical organization produces itself the structure > which creates itself. 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/
