Nice one Bo, we are so, so close .. I am obviously "uncomfortable" with the finger / moon stuff ... that's my point, I am frustrated that it keeps coming around on here.
I'm not just "forgetting" the SOMist Platypi, I'm simply saying they are the symptoms of SOMist thinking, as Pirsig did. So leave SOMism itself behind, it's history (almost literally). Reality is the MoQ. Attempting to define it using accepted SOMist dialectic methods, just keeps throwing up Platypi. It is that which demonstrates to a MoQist is that SOMism fails. I'm saying never forget that. ie stop accidentally using SOMism to argue about MoQism and then being surprised at the result. (I actually think you are saying the same thing ?) Ian On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 6:50 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > GOF Ian > > 19 Nov.you wrote: > >> We come full circle yet again ... to the finger and the moon, the map >> and the terrain, the menu and the meal .... > > Yes, "the finger" is obscene ;-) > >> The Intellectualization of the MoQ (when put into these e-mails and >> other writings, and layered diagrams) is an intellectualization - an >> intellectual pattern ... static in any given intellectualized state >> but clearly a better pattern than SOMism and also clearly evolving >> with each expression / participation in real use. > > Why harp on the term "intellectualization" indicating something less > than real? From the 4th levels "intellectual as different from the real > article" the MOQ/QUALITY distinction is self-evident, but the MOQ > does NOT subscribe to the S/O distinction ... in a metaphysical sense, > yet we seem condemned to wander around in a no-man's land > between Q-intellect (still as SOM) and the MOQ as an intellectual > pattern. > >> An intellectualization (of the MoQ) is an intellectualization. The MoQ >> is the MoQ. Quality is Quality. DQ is DQ. Fingers (or words or >> intellects) pointing at any one them are fingers (or words or >> intellects). > > When are YOU gonna get uncomfortable with this silly finger/moon > thing? The image of the heavenly body is just a subjective mindish > secondary by-product - if you stick to intellect's S/O distinction and the > MOQ is an alternative to SOM's platypus-spawnings. The MOQ > revealed that the said platypis were caused by the S/O mistakenly > being regarded as fundamental, while it as its own 4th.level it's a great > static asset. > >> When are you guys ever gonna get comfortable with the recursion and >> just let the emergence happen ? Trying to better define the MoQ (in >> intellect) used to be called re-arranging deckchairs on the Titanic >> (sorry, no, e-arranging angels on the head of a pin) > > Looks as if real thinkers never will be comfortable with "just forget that > platypus and be happy" attitude. > > > 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/
