You're welcome. Of course I couldn't do it alone. Everyone deserves thanks:
Bodvar, Platt, Magnus, Horse, Ant, and all the original Lila Squad
contributors. And Robert Pirsig too. Thanks everyone!
----------------------------------------
> Date: Fri, 22 May 2009 03:45:51 -0400
> To: [email protected]
> From: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [MD] Protestant Capitalism
>
>
> Hello Platt,
>
> You have reminded me again what a treasure of a
> book is LILA'S CHILD. (Thank you Dan!) Here are
> Annotations 57, 58 & 60, also very interesting.
>
> 57. In the MOQ time is dependent on experience
> independently of matter. Matter is a deduction from
> experience.
>
> 58. Yes, the MOQ only contradicts the SOM denial that value
> exists in the real world. The MOQ says it does. Thus the
> MOQ is an expansion of existing knowledge, not a denial
> of existing knowledge.
>
> 60. It says subjects and objects are deduced from quality
> events, but many quality events occur without a resultant
> subject and object.
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
> .
>
>
>
>
>
> At 12:30 PM 5/21/2009, you wrote:
>
>>Greetings Platt,
>>
>>Thanks Platt, I never thought I'd be a Bo
>>convert, but there is a need to get beyond even
>>the Intellectual patterns. Here are the two notes you referenced:
>>
>>56. The word “produced” implies that Dynamic Quality is a
>>part of a cause and effect system of the kind generated by
>>scientific thinking. But Dynamic Quality cannot be part of
>>any cause and effect system since all cause and effect
>>systems are static patterns. All we can say is that these
>>static patterns emerged and that they are better than
>>physical nothingness.
>>A philosophic tradition of scientific value-neutrality would
>>argue that you cannot say these value patterns are better than
>>physical nothingness because scientifically speaking in the
>>real world nothing is better than anything else. But if these
>>patterns had not emerged there would be no life. And if life is
>>not better than death and the science that life produces is not
>>better than non-science, then this scientific tradition of value
>>neutrality is no better than no words at all. That is, it has no
>>merit.
>>
>>59. I think this paradox exists as a result of the materialist
>>history of scientific thinking. Scientists often forget that all
>>scientific knowledge is subjective knowledge based on
>>experience, although science does not deny that this is true.
>>All objects are in fact mental constructs based on
>>experience. If we do not forget this and start with
>>experience as the beginning point of the experiment, rather
>>than objective quantum particles as the beginning point of
>>the experiment, the paradox seems to vanish.
>>The existence of collective masses of electrons can be inferred
>>from experience and there is every reason to think they exist
>>independently of the mind. But in the case of the spin of an
>>individual electron, there is no experience. In addition, the
>>nature of the Heisenberg Theory of Indeterminacy prevents
>>any inference from general collective experience of electrons
>>to certify the spin of any individual electron. If you can’t
>>experience something and you can’t infer it either, then you
>>have no scientific basis for saying that it exists. Thus the
>>single quantum event that is supposed to trigger the cat’s fate
>>is a figment of the imagination. It can never exist
>>independently of the mind and cannot have any effect
>>whatsoever on any real cat that does exist independently of the
>>mind. The Schrödinger experiment is interesting to think
>>about, but like an angels-on-pinheads experiment, is
>>impossible in to perform in an objective world.
>>
>>
>>
>>Marsha
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>At 09:38 AM 5/21/2009, you wrote:
>>>Marsha,
>>>
>>>Well said! A clear, concise summary of Bo's position as ever posted.
>>>Just to add a bit to it I ran across in
>>>reviewing Pirsig's notes to the LS his
>>>description of S/O as "scientific thinking." (Notes 56 & 59) I thought that
>>>hit the nail on the proverbial head. What we need is less scientific
>>>thinking and more aesthetic thinking -- a cause you have championed
>>>from the get go.
>>>
>>>Platt
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On 21 May 2009 at 8:50, MarshaV wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ron,
>>>>
>>>> I'm talking, like Bo, of the explanatory strength
>>>> of the MOQ. It seems to me that if it is clearly
>>>> stated that the Intellectual Level is of
>>>> subject/object patterns it becomes very clear
>>>> that dwelling in the Intellectual Level (no how
>>>> exalted it seems) is not going to get you to the MOQ point-of-view.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Marsha
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 08:43 AM 5/21/2009, you wrote:
>>>>>Marsha, I think the point is clinging to that
>>>>>entrapment. It takes a bravery and a
>>>>>fearlessness to overcome it. As the Sophists say
>>>>>and many others, excellence is a practice, like
>>>>>the entrapment. We were taught to practice s/o
>>>>>over a long period of growth like wise we must
>>>>>teach ourselves and reinforce excellence over a
>>>>>long peroid of growth. The impossiblity of
>>>>>escape disolves with the practice of excellence.
>>>>>I have found the four agreements works well
>>>>>within the four levels of excellence and
>>>>>reinforces their meaning. Ruiz says that by
>>>>>slowly breaking the agreements made with the
>>>>>small self and replacing them with the
>>>>>agreements of Quality, through practice we will
>>>>>be free of it. they are: Â BE IMPECCABLE WITH
>>>>>YOUR WORD Speak with integrity. Say only what
>>>>>you mean. Avoid using the word to speak against
>>>>>yourself or to gossip about others. Use the
>>>>>power of your word in the direction of truth and
>>>>>love. DONâEURTMT TAKE ANYTHING PERSONALLY Nothing
>>>>>others do is because of you. What others say and
>>>>>do is a projection of their own reality, their
>>>>>own dream. When you are immune to the opinions
>>>>>of others, you wonâEURTMt be the victim of needless
>>>>>suffering. DONâEURTMT MAKE ASSUMPTIONS Find the
>>>>>courage to ask questions and to express what you
>>>>>really want. Communicate with others as clearly
>>>>>as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness,
>>>>>and drama. With just this one agreement, you can
>>>>>completely transform your life. ALWAYS DO YOUR
>>>>>BEST Your best is going to change from moment to
>>>>>moment; it will be different when you are
>>>>>healthy as opposed to sick. Under any
>>>>>circumstance, simply do your best, and you will
>>>>>avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.
>>>>>Â Â Â ________________________________ From:
>>>>>MarshaV To:
>>>>>[email protected] Sent: Thursday, May 21,
>>>>>2009 5:50:48 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Protestant
>>>>>Capitalism Ron, Don't you think Bo has a valid
>>>>>point. It seems impossible to breakaway from
>>>>>the subject/object chatter which is entrapment.
>>>>>Marsha At 04:17 AM 5/21/2009, you
>>>>>wrote:>Ron>>On 19 May you wrote:>>> Are
>>>>>you saying that Platt is on firm MoQ ground by
>>>>>being>> anti-intellectual?>>Yes, the
>>>>>greatest obstacle is the 4th. level because -
>>>>>prior to the MOQ>- it was
>>>>>reality itself (like the 3rd and 2nd. and
>>>>>1st have been in their>time) Platt isn't
>>>>>"anti-intellectual", but sees the 4th. level
>>>>>for>what it is,>namely a static level that
>>>>>refuses a dynamic pattern to form a new>reality
>>>>>The MOQ is of course no static level, but in
>>>>>this particular>context it has a level-like
>>>>>relationship with intellect.>>> Also, are you
>>>>>saying that ALL intellectual patterns are more
>>>>>moral than>> social patterns?>>Yes,
>>>>>intellect is the highest static level, yet the
>>>>>mere knowledge of the>dynamic/static context
>>>>>(that the upper level is dependent the
>>>>>lower>level for its own good) prevents
>>>>>intellect from undermining its social>base. The
>>>>>big question is if it prevents the MOQ from
>>>>>undermining its>own base - intellect - I mean
>>>>>if it can go on after being reduced to a>static
>>>>>level? (footnote).>>> Essentially you are
>>>>>saying that no one knows intellectual quality
>>>>>unless>> they subscribe to your SOL.
>>>>>-Ron>>That's right, but it isn't really "my
>>>>>SOL" In ZAMM's proto-moq there is>just one
>>>>>"static" (classic) level - the SOM - but it's
>>>>>also called>"intellect">so it was clearly
>>>>>Phaedrus's original idea. And in LILA there are
>>>>>many>indications that SOM is no foreign matter
>>>>>that has polluted intellect, but>the very
>>>>>article.>>IMO>>Bo>>>Footnote:>This is
>>>>>the "intellect joining forces with biology to
>>>>>quell society">phenomenon brought one notch
>>>>>up. The MOQ joining forces with>social value to
>>>>>quell intellect. This would be a disaster and
>>>>>why I at>times wonder about the MOQ. It's valid
>>>>>as .... but is it GOOD?>Perhaps better let it
>>>>>continue in its harmless "academical" vein,
>>>>>letting .>Anthony McWatt and David Buchanan be
>>>>>the administrators of
>>>>>Pirsig's>legacy.>>>>>>Moq_Discuss mailing
>>>>>list>Listinfo, Unsubscribing
>>>>>etc.>http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_d
>>>>>iscuss-moqtalk.org>Archives:>http://lists.moqta
>>>>>lk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/>http:/
>>>>>/moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ .
>>>>>_____________ The self is a thought-flow of
>>>>>ever-changing, interrelated and interconnected,
>>>>>inorganic, biological, social and intellectual,
>>>>>static patterns of value responding to Dynamic
>>>>>Quality. . . 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/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>> _____________
>>>>
>>>> The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing,
>>>> interrelated and interconnected, inorganic,
>>>> biological, social and intellectual, static
>>>> patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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/
>>
>>
>>.
>>_____________
>>
>>The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing,
>>interrelated and interconnected, inorganic,
>>biological, social and intellectual, static
>>patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
>>
>>.
>>.
>>
>>
>>
>>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/
>
>
> .
> _____________
>
> The self is a thought-flow of ever-changing,
> interrelated and interconnected, inorganic,
> biological, social and intellectual, static
> patterns of value responding to Dynamic Quality.
>
> .
> .
>
>
>
> 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/
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has a new way to see what's up with your friends.
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/WhatsNew?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_WhatsNew1_052009
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/
