Bo, I don't deny that possibility ... that one day a better view than MoQ might arise ... but I'd say it would have to be something completely suprising to find, given the road testing so far. I don't deny it, but I would predict otherwise.
I have enough "faith" in the MoQ to use it as my metaphysical world-view (albeit contingently, like anything.) Regards Ian On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:18 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Andre and Ian > > 4 Aug. > > I had said to Ian: >> I agree with using language's long-ingrained "intellectual" terms that >> include mind and matter in normal discourse, but right now we are up >> in the high country of metaphysics and yours about "future >> possibilities of intellect" does not sound of MOQ understanding to me. > > Andre: >> Bodvar, can you please tell me what you mean by the last part of your >> sentence...i.e. 'does not sound of MOQ understanding...'. > > Regarding Ian, it was his agreeing with me about the MOQ (in ZAMM) > degrading SOM to the S/O and DQ's fall-out and further (in that book) > calling it "intellect" ..... and then Ian going on to speak about "future > possibilities" (for intellect) indicating that it isn't only SOM but the > dreaded idea compartment that can contain whatever ideas there are. > >> What, for you, are the indicators that lead you to conclude that >> someone 'understands' the MoQ? (this, apart from the notion that >> intellect is the S/O aggregate). > > There isn't anything else than "intellect = the S/O aggregate" that > indicates an understanding of the MOQ, but that again is revolution. > SOM is no freak intellectual pattern that has hijacked the whole level, > but the level itself. SOM its "status" before its Quality context was > revealed. > >> Secondly, you seem to imply that 'static' means unchangeable/fixed. Is >> this your understanding of the term static? > > My understanding is the same as Pirsig's, meaning that (f.ex.) biology > can only produce/evolve new life forms and society ever new social > configurations ...and intellect ever new S/Os which it actually has > done. But Ian's "future possibilities" indicates that an idea might come > along some day that rejects the MOQ and still be a Q-intellect > pattern. That's clearly absurd, but likens Pirsig about QUALITY being > reality and the MOQ just some words about the MOQ , i.e. that all > world views in the past were "moqs" just without knowing it, and any > in the future will be even if rejecting the MOQ. > > Yours sincerely > > 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/ > 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/
