Hi Steve
5 July you wrote:
> Hi Bo, DMB,
> > > One doesn't need to "deduce" the discrepancy between concepts and
> > > reality from the DQ/sq distinction because that distinction and the
> > > discrepancy are exactly the same thing. Concepts are static
> > > intellectual patterns and reality is Dynamic Quality.
> Bo said:
> > You seem oblivious to the fact that the first DQ/SQ distinction is
> > the inorganic one and its perception of value is not by concepts nor
> > is the biological, only with the social level and language did
> > concepts enter the scene, but only with intellect did the the
> > reality/concept distinction occur. Your resistance shows how
> > immensely strong intellect's ties are - they want to dominate the
> > scene - but these must be torn if one is to enter Quality's
> > meta-level.
> Steve:
> I think Pirsig disagrees and favors DMB's interpretation of the MOQ:
Don't you think I know that Pirsig agrees with DMB, and that makes it
so terrible hard for me to defend the true MOQ, but in LC Pirsig tarted
to stray from the original ZAMM MOQ. To be more exact the decline
started in LILA with the ill-conceived intellectual level (as mind) then
the Turner letter where he admitted the confusion that this created
and came within a hair's breath to admit the true (SOL) interpretation,
but even so DMB continues to treat the intellectual level as SOM's
mind and that its patterns are ideas or concepts. Well you ignore all
my arguments and bring a LC quote:
LC annotation 60. "This is difficult to untangle...The difference
is rooted in the historic chicken-and-egg controversy over
whether matter came first and produces ideas, or ideas come
first and produce what we know as matter. The MOQ says that
Quality comes first which produces ideas which produce what
we know as matter. The scientific community that has
produced Complementarity, almost invariably presumes that
matter comes first and produces ideas. However, as if to
further the confusion, the MOQ says that the idea that matter
comes first is a high quality idea! ..."
What the heck has the mind/matter controversy to do with the MOQ?
Its DQ/SQ distinction has replaced SOM's Mind/Matter and (as the
only possible opening) has made SOM its own intellectual level.
The true MOQ says that Quality is primary ("comes first") and its first
"product" being the inorganic level and then the biological ...etc. and
finally the intellectual level where the S/O split (and its many offshots,
mind/matter among them) are its static value patterns. Then Pirsig
manages to say that "ideas" produces matter, if so ideas also produce
ideas (mind) and all this goes haywire. And then the reference to the
"scientific community" (physics) that "..... invariably presumes that
matter comes first and produces ideas" (mind) Sure, it's science's
(intellect's) very business to presume that the OBJECTIVE part is
primary and the SUBJECTIVE is secondary. Then he says " ..to
further the confusion the MOQ says that the idea that matter comes
first is a high quality idea". Yes, the intellectual level is the highest
static value, but its patterns are not IDEAS but the S/O split.
Why this terribly convoluted way to arrive at something that the true
MOQ clarifies so infinitely easier?
Well I only know too well, it's his misconceived mindish intellectual
level that has concepts or ideas as its patterns.
> DMB, I've enjoyed reading your stuff of late. All that book learnin'
> is doing you good.
Once upon a time while DMB had his nerve he protested just this very
LC annotation, but got seduced by Paul Turner and have since gone
more and more astray. His study of academical philosophy has
further added to his decay.
I know you haven't read a word of this Steve, that's the policy around
this place. Don't look into the telescope.
Bodvar
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/
