Ron:
You are saying Value is DQ/SQ which S/O is a subspecies of.
In effect you junk the majority of Pirsigs MoQ theories and
keep DQ/SQ as prime. In effect creating a neo-objectivism,
an objectivism split into DQ/SQ and holding subjectivism
to the intellectual level (SOM).
That leaves ultimate reality as a dualism (DQ/SQ) and embraces the notion of
the gods eye view.
The seperation of the observer from the observed.
Two concepts Quantum physics dismissed quite some time ago.
This formulation would not add to Quantum theory but set it back. Is'nt the
test of a
workable meta-physic that it guide physics? that it's concepts be ahead of
physics not lagging
behind it? Isn't this what we mean by a meta-physics purpose is to provide a
clearer explaination
of observable phenomena? If this interpretation is to guide science it is
already
behind the times.
>
> Thank you 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/
>
>
>
>
> 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/
Bo
12 Nov. you wrote:
> you say the MoQ
> dissolves the s/o split by encasing it within itself as the
> intellectual level, leaving MoQ as a meta-level a 5th level if you
> will (reality you say).
Bo:
You seem genuinely interested in the MOQ (I don't say SOL because
it's the only way to interpret the MOQ that sets it apart), and how it
"encases" SOM is the very crux.
> in effect, in your interpretation the order would be:
> 1: MoQ (reality)
> 2: SOM (intellect)
> 3: social
> 4: organic
> 5: inorganic
Bo:
Yes, it will look like this ... only I would put intellect (the level) in its
proper place and put SOM in parenthesis. The MOQ is the DQ/SQ
reality that replaces the former Subject/Object reality, so you see each
level can be regarded as reality (or metaphysics) that has replaced the
former.
Bo
*) LILA:
This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance
has been the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a
larger one. Value is not a subspecies of substance.
Substance is a subspecies of value. When you reverse the
containment process and define substance in terms of value
the mystery disappears: substance is a "stable pattern of
inorganic values." The problem then disappears. The world of
objects and the world of values is unified.
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/
