Ian! 14 Nov. you wrote:
> This is a great thread folks ... I've read about 40% of the > contributions. Just wanted to express a couple of angles ... Earlier > ... the historical angle is the common basis to find agreement with Bo > (I hadn't checked out the Comte connection, but it's credible) I believe it was Woods who asked if I had read Comte, regrettably I haven't the time to follow reading hints, but if Woods would tell about his bearing on the MOQ. > Later ... throughout history the menu and the meal have co-evolved > cyclically ... the menu described the best understanding of the food > and the understanding of the food determined what was descibed on the > menu. The menu/food analogy is a variant of the map/terrain one. On page 103 in LILA Pirsig takes the metaphysic=map as granted and just speaks about the the SOM map and the MOQ map as different projections (the earth is round and no flat map can fully represent it beyond a certain scale) > We should not be surprised to find this returning to the phenomenal. > Life the Universe and Everything (as we know it Jim) is "as we know > it". Our knowledge of reality evolves. Probabalistic statements about > what exists beyond what is currently "known" are just more of the > same, mind-games, evolutionary psychology. And yet Ian, this is SOM or intellect. Objectivity (knowledge) vs Subjective (mind-games). The preceding social level had no such distinction (I won't start on that again) nor does the MOQ subscribe to the S/O, but have relegated it the role of its highest static. Now, the static realm is the place to be if only understood in the MOQ sense, but for the time being we circle aimlessly around in some no-man's- land between SOM (intellect) and the MOQ (as intellect too). > The circularity of the interplay between the presumed not-yet- > understood "reality" and the "understood" reality is for me the > clincher that we have the right model. Accepting the phenomenaly > (perceived reality, an epistemology) does not deny the presumed > existence of the not-yet-perceived (ontological) reality .. it is just > an honest expression of how the two are dynamically related. I think the map/terrain or "understood/presumed reality" analogy is misleading. Quality isn't the terrain with the MOQ a map - this is merely more SOM. IMO 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/
