Hi Mel, Yes, kinda the same ... just a matter for how we choose to name what we experience (and hpw we choose to divide it up into the things we name).
I tried that "just get comfortable with that fact" on Bo, but he still wants to criticize the lack of "logic" in that, so I have turned my attention to addressing the logical difficulty, but Bo has yet to acknowledge that response (in the fine mess thread). Regards Ian On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM, ml <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian, > > I don't know if this helps, but by analogy > If an SOM-ist and a MOQ-ist are standing at > the beach, the SOM-ist says the earth's > surface is either land or water. > While the MOQ-ist shrugs and sees the > earth's crust as all land, some below sea level > some above and in all types and conditions of > wetness regardless of whether the names is known > or the particulars yet seen. > > Yet both swim together in the same ocean and > run side by side down the same beach before > sharing breakfast and arguing about it. > > thanks--mel > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ian Glendinning" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:52 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy. > > >> That's how I look at it Steve. >> >> (1) seeing the MOQ as an intellectual pattern that is superior to the >> intellectual pattern known as SOM >> (2) as opposed to seeing all of intellect as SOM (IOW Pirsig's MOQ) >> (3) and the MOQ as a single pattern forming it's own new level (IOW Bo >> and Platt's revised SOLAQI MOQ)? >> >> Though I have to say I see (1) a the Pirsigian MoQ since as I have >> said endlessly in this recent series of threads he never says anything >> close to (2) "all of intellect being SOM" IMHO. He was just ahead of >> his time in evolutionary explanations for (1). >> >> (2) plus (3) are the Bo problem. >> >> But, pragmatically, even though I prefer the simpler view of MoQ as a >> superior evolved intellectual pattern, I have no problem with MoQ as a >> (superior) pattern inside or outside the existing intellectual level, >> as I must have said to Bo a hundred times. (The only problem with the >> separate level / layer / thing view of the MoQ itself is this >> interminable objective definitional one ... but that's not something a >> pragmatist loses any sleep over. Which is your point.) >> >> The practical consequences are that MoQ is a superior (participative, >> inclusional, involved, unified) "quality" way of thinking about the >> world than a detached, objective, dualist, SOMist view. End of. >> >> A practical side-effcet is that MoQist thinkers are accused of being >> "unscientific" and "faithful" since they are unable to define their >> arguments (completely) in the standard objective, syllogistic, >> cause/effect terms that SOMist "received wisdom" would recognize. >> Something I've always called "Catch-22". A burden to bear. But it >> can't be solved by such argumentation, only by actions - actions >> including evolution of minds by reproduction over generations - like >> anything else in fact ;-) >> >> Ian >> 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/
