Hi Andre,
Thanks for your views on the MOQ. Very interesting. I especially liked the
following:
> In this sense , the MoQ is the freest ( in Bateman's terms, has the most
> requisite variety) than any other metaphysical system.
> It is capable of explaining SPOV's, analysing the inconsistencies within
> our
> understanding of SPOV's and exposing the resultant tensions within and
> between each SPOV. It is dynamic, simply because it has recognised that
> 'reality' i.e. DQ. Therefore it is freer than anything else we have had
> before (in our thinking and our experience)[...or perhaps I should say
> it
> has given a ligitimate voice to our thinking and experiencing which has
> been
> part of our own patterns for millions of years].MoQ is also a guiding
> force
> because it recognises Quality as reality and not the confines of SOM as
> reality. MoQ points to the possibility of a moral force at work.
Very insightful. A good argument for the MOQ perspective. Moreover, in
regards to freedom, Pirsig freed the term "morality" from the prison of
referring only to human behavior, and gave credence to the strange idea
that the world is a moral order. All great contributors towards the
evolution of life were freedom's advocates. Washington freed a nation from
tyranny. Bohr freed physics from Newton´s billiard balls. Chagall freed
color from nature. Calder freed sculpture from gravity. Einstein freed the
dimensions of space. Etc.
Incidentally, the MOQ view immediately spots SOM self-contradictory
statements like "All is one." (Language must then be excluded from "All"
because "All is one" is three words). Essentially, while SOM language is
relative the MOQ view is intuitive -- a direct sense of Quality if you
will. To quote the mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, "I believe
consciousness to the be closely associated with the sensing of necessary
truths." The MOQ confirms.
Thanks again for a great post.
Platt
>
> Bo continues:
>
> Platt is spot on. The MOQ is "out of SOM" no one can deny that. It was
> SOM's paradoxes that vexed young P. so much that he - after flunking
> school and drifting laterally for many years - had his Quality Epiphany.
> And that he had to use SOM's reason to prove that SOM is incomplete
> is just as plain..
>
> Andre:
>
> Absolutely agree, see my previous point. Pirsig is bright. He saw
> consistencies and inconsistencies and a whole lot of other things within
> the
> dominant, and not so dominant/ popular, intellectual frameworks and he
> put
> them together to arrive at a Quality understanding of reality.
>
> Bodvar:
> OK, I see your "reason" ;-) Fair enough, but the SOL must be
> employed for the MOQ to be consistent and have its proclaimed
> explanatory power.
>
> Andre:
>
> Not to offend anyone but who cares where he got it from? He may have
> drawn
> it out of his toes for all I care or sucked out of his thumb.
> Of course he didn't, he drew from many places and in the end he combined
> the
> whole lot into his heart (mysticism?), combined it with his feelings and
> produced ZMM and more formally, Lila, inductively and deductively
> respectively.
> All is one!
> Which method one uses depends on one's static patterns and upon the
> outcome
> one wants. One method maybe more useful to use than another. Sometimes
> we
> use the shape of the clouds,the direction of the wind, to tell us where
> to
> go. Sometimes the position of the stars or even the cosy feeling of our
> bed
> to not go there.
> SOM/MOQ. Can you compare the oxen-and cart with a Masarrati? Yet,
> without
> the former we would not have the latter (and I see the former
> everyday...can
> you imagine a Masarrati pulling the plow in these rice-paddy fields?)
>
> Bodvar in Issue No 16:
>
> I still wonder what relevance the "doctor vs germ" example has in the
> Reason=SOM debate (are there doctors who have qualms using
> antibiotics?) but it must have something to do with Andr?'s about MOQ
> as a "method of reasoning" as opposed to SOM's ditto. And I'll
> concentrate on this to (try to) make my point.
>
> Andre:
>
> Yes, Bodvar. In our 'enlightened' Holland some still do and this is due
> to
> religious convictions. In SOM thinking this is allowed. It talks about
> the
> right of the doctor to appeal to his/her ethical/moral objections and so
> not
> administer, and the right of the patient/parents who may appeal on the
> same
> grounds and not be administered to...(often making a decision on behalf
> of
> the child who subsequently dies)!
> However,not specifically referring to antibiotics but a very interesting
> 'moral' issue came up a few weeks ago in Parliament (and caused a stirr
> socially and intellectually).
> Medical science has developed a screening test whereby embryo's of
> persons
> carrying a deadly form of breastcancer is detected.
> To clarify, Mum knows she carries this disease, marries, gets pregnant
> and
> here comes the screen... .
> This germ kills...no doubt about it. Mum may live 'till 30 (if she is
> very
> lucky) maybe 35 but she will die young. Question is: should we kill the
> embryo, knowing we are certain that it carries this deadly germ? And by
> killing it at this stage destroy the possibility of 'infecting' another
> generation with it. Removing a continuing, moral dilemma.
> I think the MoQ reasoning leaves no doubt whose side it is on. Yet,
> through
> religiously inspired arguments (Holland has a many party political system)
> a
> watered down piece of legislation has been adopted leaving those
> concerned
> still up in the air about what is legally/ morally correct. May I also
> add
> that the mothers concerned wanted a: kill the embryo verdict ! They
> didn't
> get it. This is an indication of how politics gets into areas of
> personal/individual experience it has absolutely no right to meddle
> in.Such
> is Holland...sometimes.
>
> I am not done yet, but send this in just to be rid of it.
> In the mean time, if you feel so inclined do criticise but be gentle on
> me
> please...I am only developing this and not necessarily uncertain but not
> completely certain either. I would really like your input so I can
> understand this MoQ better.
>
> For what it is worth
>
> Andre
> 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/
