Bo:
The MOQ postulates that Quality is reality's ground and this
Quality is the DQ of its DQ/SQ configuration. Do you agree? Just
to prevent the Quality/MOQ. SOM on the other hand has no "set
of data" which is split, it merely postulates one objective (matter)
reality and one subjective (mind) reality.
Ron:
MoQ postulates Quality as realities ground BUT it also postulates
Quality as experience.
Pirsig say reality is experience. Do you agree?
Both SOM and MoQ begin with experience(set of data).
SOM posits an objective reality before experience and reifies
this concept as concrete reality. MoQ does not. MoQ DOES
however provide a greater explaination of objective concepts
by making VALUE, realities ground stuff (experience) central
in explaination, disolving former paradoxes in understanding.
The major problem in SOM isn't the mind/matter paradox for
SOM is objectivism heavy, it discounts subjective experience.
The BIG problem is the essentialim of objectivism, the idea that
objects are whole units of substance isolated in space that respond to the
laws of cause and effect.
Bo:
Now, to make the S/O split a split of Quality it must be made into
MOQ's intellectual level, that's the only possible placement that
meets all requirements, but instead of everyone agreeing with this
obvious fact I'm ostracized.
Ron:
Because it builds on the assumptions of objectivism, The s/o split has become
a social level split, a cultural assumption based in intellectually invented
grammar and axiom as defined by Aristotle.
You are ostracized mainly for your arrogance and certainty in your
interpretation
of MoQ in a linear historical fashion. You are ostraciszed for calling EVERYONE
even Pirsig, idiots for not seeing YOUR point of view as THE point of view.
If reality is expereince, the four levels only apply to the "now" of existence.
We are TAUGHT to abstract expereince in terms of S/O. Therefore defining the
ABILTY to abstract as a particular METHOD of abstraction creates conceptual
problems
and limits.
In short MoQ and SOM are METHODS of abstraction not the human ABILITY to do so.
Bo:
Listen. If one accepts MOQ's premises - among those that the first
static level is the inorganic one, this is no longer SOM's "objective"
part (matter) consequently your accusation of objectivization is
groundless.
Ron:
THAT is the trouble YOU do not accept the MoQ's premises as explained
by Pirsig do you? Pirsig states that inorganic/organic is SOM's objective
reality. It is explained in terms of VALUE which sets it apart from objectivism.
Ron prev:
> Bo, the only way we view ANYTHING is via social level and intellectual
> level, this goes for the view of the inorganic and biological levels,
> the view of these levels is ALLWAYS from the social and intellectual
> levels viewpoint.
Bo:
More nonsense. We are committed to a view from MOQ's meta-
level! Basta!!
Ron:
MoQ's meta level is an intellectual viewpoint. Else you enter objectivism again.
> Since all inorganic and biological patterns are viewed from the
> perspective of the social and intellectual levels, they are understood
> as concepts.
Bo:
Had you just stuck to the intellectual level view - like Pirsig in the
infamous annotation about ideas creating matter ...etc - you would
have been a mere ... (deleted) but adding the social makes you a
complete ...(deleted)
Ron:
And you wonder why you are ostracized.
Bo:
Pirsig opens LILA with the correct statement that no one can avoid
metaphysics, meaning no on can live without a grand view, call it
God's Eye or whatever.
Ron:
Pirsig actually said that one may not enter into a logical chain of reasoning
without
some sort of a metaphysical conception. Huge difference.
Bo continues:
You can go to the remotest tribe in the
inner New Guinea (if there are any left) and they invariable
presents you with a mythology (social level metaphysics) of their
origin and destiny. When you come back to the Western world you
are confronted with the intellectual level's metaphysics (SOM) of
Big Bang ..etc. The MOQ is now introducing a metaphysics that
will unite all in the one grand unification theory GUT.
Ron:
They are BOTH metaphysical explainations using different methods.
The big bang theory is every bit as conceptual intellectually as a
creation myth, in fact it IS mainly an educated creation myth.
Unless of course, you are an objectivist then it IS reality.
"Grand Unification, grand unified theory, or GUT refers to any of several
very similar unified field
theories or models in physics that predicts that at extremely high energies
(above 1014 GeV), the
electromagnetic, weak nuclear, and strong nuclear forces are fused into a
single unified field."-wiki
Get your head out of your (deleted), Bo
Bo:
But the enormity of it is too much for all you midgets to
understand.
Ron:
This coming from a delusional mite.
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/
