Bo: It's clear that you're frustrated and that you feel unread. You have my sympathy to a certain extent but I'm just not interested in repeating our debate. I think your view has already been thoroughly defeated and here you've added nothing to this defeated view. Thanks all the same, dmb
> From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 09:48:41 +0200 > Subject: Re: [MD] Reductionism > > Dear David. > > 3 July you said:. > > > 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. > > 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. > > > This doesn't mean concepts are unreal. It only means that there static > > concepts are qualitatively different than dynamic reality. That's why > > DQ can't be defined. You can't have a definition without concepts and > > DQ is the pre-conceptual reality. One doesn't deduce the latter from > > the former because the latter IS the former. > > I know this perfectly well. The intellectual level is static and it's (in > this > case) reality/concept distinction is the highest value, but not reality > itself and when examined it merges with its social parent. Your > mistake is to have concepts (ideas) as intellect's patterns. As said a > million times social level mankind had language, but did not recognize > any reality/concept split, this came with intellect, and in the Turner > letter Pirsig said that intellect emerged with the Greeks ...have you > forgotten? > > dmb says: > > > Huh? Concepts ARE differentiations. > > Again, the static differentiation begins with the inorganic level, only > with the intellectual level did the reality/language split occur. The > differentiation between a reality out there and concepts in our minds is > INTELLECT's VALUE. > > > dmb says: > > Again, this distinction does not mean that concepts are unreal. They > > are real AS concepts, as static patterns. > > All your troubles stems from the fallacy that the intellectual level's > patterns are concepts or ideas. It's master-pattern is the S/O split and > its many off-shoots: Mind/matter, soul/body, mental/corporeal, > culture/nature, reality/concepts ... etc.. > > =================== STOP PRESS ====================== > > > Even in the MOQ, distinctions have to made and concepts have to be > > involved or you don't have any kind of philosophy. > > Yes, this IS the very heart of the matter and this post should only have > been about this point. Language is the medium we live by and must > NOT be involved (except as coming to pass sometime in history) If we > try to include it f.ex by saying that existence's deepest split is between > reality and language it's a catastrophe. It makes the MOQ a subset of > SOM (which IS the very reality/language split) and inherits all its > platypuses. While SOM as the 4th level makes all puzzle bits fall into > place. The paradoxes are explained by the intellect's static quality, > while all its benefits are intact. > > ==================================================== > > > The trick is to make bettedistinctions than the other guy and > > Pirsig's distinctions are designed to do just that, with the "other > > guy" in this case being SOM. The MOQ's distinction between dynamic and > > static replaces the distinction between subjects and objects. > > Agreement, but SOM can't be jettisoned it must find a place within the > MOQ and intellect is the obvious place. > > > Pirsig isn't saying that subjects are more real than objects nor is he > > saying objects are more real than subjects. He's saying that both of > > thes are static concepts derived from dynamic reality. > > I wonder where he says that they are static concepts, in my book he > says they are static PATTERNS, the former social and intellectual, the > latter inorganic and biological. I don't buy this, but that can wait. > > > He's saying SOM itself is just an idea derived from the primary > > empirical reality. He's saying that SOM commits "the error of > > conferring existential status upon the products of reflection". He's > > saying subjects and objects are reified concepts, are abstractions that > > are mistaken for concrete realities. > > Sure, SOM or intellect is derived - all levels are "derived" from the > parent level by DQ's assistance. > > > 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/ _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Get 25 GB of free online storage. http://windowslive.com/online/skydrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_SD_25GB_062009 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/
