________________________________
Mati,
Thank you for the pleaseant reply. Analytic was the culmenation
of pre-socratic thought, the crowning achievement of a type of certainty
derived from democratic notions of common understanding as opposed
to the mystic revealations of a select priestly caste. Aristotles student
Alexander
the great spread this notion throughout his empire reaching from
Greece to India. I believe that the concept of democracy had more to do
with the split you mention with the past, spread apon the back of Greek conquest
then Roman dominance. Aristotles oraganon was one of the few treasures
surviving the sack of Alexandria to be revived during the rennesaince.
Keeping analytic from dissolving into eternity, a relic of an ancient
democratic culture..
The Romans and consequently the bizantines and the holy roman empire
revered the Greeks and their survivng texts. High speach to this day remains
latin. My point is that analytic (SOM) is more in the province of chance and
fortune than evolution. Inductive logic had been around for thousands of years
prior to the greeks but what the greeks really brought to the table was
deduction.
This raised analytic to the level of a kind of magic as far as prediction.
Ron:
I would go as far as to say that reflective practice is intellect. As stated
before, what the Greeks introduced was a democratic collaboration
of the acceptance of concepts. Analytic developed over hundreds of
years through sophistry and rhetoric developing into dialectic and analytic.
A way to establish certainty within the flux. Only after the enlightenment
did Subject/Object become an issue, one of predication it turns out to be.
Mati:
SOM provided a new capacity to reflect the world
around us, I suppose that you could suggest that this new capacity is
a culture itself, and in that wouldn't argue the point. I know that
many dismiss the idea but I find myself interested in what is the
driving force that brought SOM into being, it is that age old
experience of looking into mirror and questioning what is there.
Ron:
What brought SOM into being was the question of "be-ing", what
did it mean to say that something "is"? from Heraclitus to Parmenides
to Plato and Aristotle the notion of essentialism developed. Aristotles
Analytic required axioms of grammar in order to utilize it's predications
of logic.The strict universal definitions of meaning and use.
Ron:
> The acknowledged earmarks
> of abstract thought in our culture is defined by the Greek inventions
> of reason and analytic.
> What this means is that the definition of intellect is contextual and may
> only be very broadly generalized as abstract thought or the manipulation
> of symbols as RMP stated in a universal understanding of the term.
Mati: I want to say, as I have said many times before, I respect RMP
work and his attempt to define intellect as the father of MOQ. But I
think it holds as many problems as it does truths. The early Greeks
and others had reason and analytic thinking. Some could suggest that
other cultures had similar reason and analytic tools in their cultures
long before SOM. The litmus test in my mind is that when you ask if
these tools are real they find themselves tethered to social/mystic
level. The early Greeks were really looking for a way to understand
the world without the social tether. It is only with SOM is that
tether broken in which it creates it own new tether. And that tether
was broken with the advent of MOQ.
Ron:
Much can be said for the Liberal views and tolereance for philosphy
in Greek culture, Athens in particular. When citizens were free to have
their voices heard and engaged in open debate without fear did the
fruit of that society become ripe. When dialectic and analytic began to
decimate the
opposition in open debate did it prove it's superiority in it's context of
proving arguements so that all could agree as to the "evidence"
provided. Plain and simple analytic proved powerful in a democratic society
more so than Myths and rhetoric.
Ron,
> Since we may only really know the human expereince this broad term only
> rightly is attributed to the human condition which limits the infinite regress
> of the definition skirting any charge of anthropomorphism.
Mati: I am missing you here, but I always find the idea of
anthropomorphism alway entertaining. :-)
Ron:
I am refering to Pirsigs fear of the defintion of intellect being reduced into
meaninglessness.
Ron:
> Bo on the other hand, holds the Greek cultural definition as THE universal
> definition
> of THE human condition, with SOL positing that DQ/SQ is THE fundemental
> reality in objective
> terms.
Mati: Hmmm.... I would be interested in Bo's take of that. I will
confess that these nuances with could be very pivotal in the whole
understanding of SOL and MOQ. But the genius of MOQ is its
simplicity. From my very lay persons perspective on philosophy it
would take some time for me to digest.
Ron:
Bo and I have argued this before and he thinks the idea that the definition
of intellect is culturally contextual is silly. "DQ/SQ is THE fundemental split
of reality, full stop!" and "intellect IS the value of the S/O divide, full
stop!"
He views intellegence and intellect as two distinct processes. He must in order
to accomodate his SOL theory. I find that he does alot of accomadating
employing often incorrect or misinterpreted concepts to support it, creating a
body
of concepts named SOL that is distorted, misleading and ill researched.
Ron:
> I think any serious physicist would laugh at the idea, how would Moq better
> describe
> the oscillations in fields of energy any better than probability calculations
> and theory?
> How would this idea create a clearer understanding than the calculations used
> to
> define and account for their observed behaviour? it can't. In fact all this
> has already
> been achieved within the past 40yrs, the problems faced now are testing these
> calculations and theories.
Mati: This is an area that I certainly am not qualified to even
speculate a reasonable answer.. The question I will naively ask is
what is the importance of any metaphysical description of
"oscillations in fields of energy?"
Ron:
The importance is that the method of calculations corresponds with observable
phenomena and that predictions may be made from these deductions. It just so
happens a math was created for wave calculations in refference to water that
produced accurate predictions in particle theory, likewise with Einstein. He
came up with the idea of curved space but it did'nt have any weight until a
freind
of his informed him that a mathematics already existed to support it. so in
I believe it was 1921 he predicted a star would appear in a certain place in
the gravitational field of the sun and it did, it made Albert Einstein a
household
name and proved that his calculations corresponded with is theories.
I ask Bodvar, how would SOL provide a greater understanding in
this context?
Ron:
> I have credited Bodvar in the past for pointing this out, but he persists in
> his own
> dream of granduer.
Mati: I have known Bodvar personally over many years. His "dream of
grandeur" is not, to the best of my knowledge, an ego trip. He
certainly has a personality and tenacity that we all have come to
know, but his personal mission is not of personal gratification, but
rather a idea that he thinks is worth fighting for.
Ron:
Any idea worth fighting for is worth researching and understanding better.
That is my critique.
Mati
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/
Mati said previosly:
Thanks for the posting, it gives a lot to think about. One of the
issues is that of definitions being culturally defined. Here I might
suggest that prior to SOM that was an exclusively true statement.
However after the advent of SOM it is not only culture that has the
only capacity to define. I would go further to suggest that over the
centuries that with reality, now being defined by the capacity brought
forth by SOM, ie. things, events, observations of the life around us
are no longer defined solely on the mystic reality. There is the
objective reality that can define things no longer tethered by the
culture of the social level. Here before SOM if you asked if
lightening is real yes, it is a tool of the mystic gods. After SOM if
lightening is real then you can say yes based on the objective
experience. I have long believed that the basis for the philosophy is
reflective practice.
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/
