Marsha, Recently you asked me to explain Bo's position in simple terms, I wanted to give Bo a chance to explain his position before I did this. Below I added my comments to his.
Ron: Bo is creating a straw man for the benefit of his arguement, mainly that language represents subjective expereince when in fact language encompasses both subjective and objective expereince, the seperation is between language and the expereinces it defines both objective and subjective, both dynamic and static. This is what he does not understand in the statement " The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about." Marsha: > How does your explanation, the SOL explanation demonstrate meta-MoQ > perspective without the use of a conventionally shared language? Bo: The SOL sees SOM as the 4th level, thus the 3rd. level knew no language/reality distinction, and - most important - the MOQ (as beyond the 4th. level) acknowledges no language/reality distinction. In the MOQ SOM's language/reality offshoot has no "jurisdiction" outside the intellectual level, thus the MOQ can see language as a social pattern that has followed Q-evolution into the intellectual level and from there into the MOQ itself. Nowhere does the language/reality platypus throw spanners into the MOQ. Ron: Uhhhhh, sounds like alot of contradictory garbage stemming from my first assertion above Marsha. Marsha: > Honestly, I just don't see your major problem. Please explain this > devastating paradox and why it destroys MOQ. Bo: If the SOM overrides the MOQ - which it does in the "Summary" The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. statement, then the MOQ is done for. I know you will point to Pirsig saying that Quality is "dynamic" and the MOQ is "static", but it's plain that here dynamic means objective or real, and MOQ means subjective or irreal because it's just concepts. That has been your point always. Ron: Again he presses the misconception of language/reality as S/O. Which is common objectivity. In the Aristotlian style, Bo Proposes that MoQ is a meta-metaphysics. An objectivism that proposes new terms for old concepts missing the central contention that expereince is reality not the divisions and distinctions we use to understand it. Basically SOL proposes that we subdivide objective reality into DQ/SQ. Making Moq the new objectivism. He feels this is the only way Moq has any "practicle" application to classical scientific understanding totally ignoring Quantum physics and the last part of the 20th centuries scientific and philosphical understanding. Marsha: > Then please explain how your SOL version rectifies the problem. I > really am trying to understand. I just don't get why it should knock > you off your rocker. Bo dodges the question: I did it up above. Let me ask you something. Do you understand the Newton Gravity argument in ZAMM? Marsha: > p.s. Ron if you can explain Bo's problem to me in simple language I > would appreciate the help. I really don't get it. Bo: Ron? LOL Ron: Unfortunately for you Bo, I do understand SOL, and it is no laughing matter, You high light a very important conventional stumbling block in a deeper understanding of what RMP actually proposes and why it does explain how we commonly percieve expereince and it's limitations of the base assumptions whether they be s/o or dq/sq. 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/ Hi Marsha 9 Feb. you said: > Greetings Bo, > And how else would RMP explain the MoQ than by using a language we > conventional share? Bo: If one sees reality as outside language's scope, then it's hilarious to use language to point this out. And it's the first part I protest because it is SOM's: language as subjective and reality as objective. 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/
