Just started reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. o_0 that's quite an eyeful ...
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM, X Acto<[email protected]> wrote: > Bo, > I have my blinkers on but not my blinders, I understand your SOL, > unless you forgot that I once was your advocate. > > until it dawned on me that in your interpretation > western civilisation is at the top of the evolutionary heirarchy, > objectivisms split of s/o is replaced with SQ/DQ and value > is merely subjective, a pit fall to the greater understanding > that MoQ (the DQ/SQ split) IS reality. > > problems: > 1. Objectivism is still intact(value of the s/o split) only now SOL proposes > that physical > phenomena be explained in DQ/SQ terminology. (some how > this has greater explainitory power) > > 2. The cultivation of cultural-centric view of the universe > and it's superiority over other cultures as evolutionarily more advanced > (same as SOM) > > 3. Personal Value is still rendered subjective and a SOM pitfall > which still keeps people isolated and alone in the DQ/SQ universe. > (same as SOM) > > 4. it glorifies scientific positivism (same as SOM) > > 5. the 5th level problem (for obviously in this interpretation > the 4 levels do NOT cover all of reality) what was Pirsig thinking? > > Put it all together and Pirsigs MoQ is a incomplete mess full of holes. > > That only Bodvar and his SOL can fix, wait, that IS bodvars SOL. > his fix, since there is only ONE "metaphysic" (one reality) > that term must be bumped up to the "M" in MoQ. > (which is reality itself) the description of physical reality > in terms of it's REAL split DQ/SQ. > > but has not a level within it's own system because, of container logic. > > > questions emerged, what exactly was this "pre" intellectual > experience Pirsig was talking about? did he mean historically? > most of his work then contradicts itself. > > well, ignore that part. It doesent makes sense, Pirsig was dilusional. > He did'nt realize the greatness of his earlier postulate that subjects and > objects emerge from static quality, DQ's first "spawn". > > Question > doesent that make things and thoughts about things static quality? > is'nt that the same as saying things and thoughts about things are > composed of objective static substance? > > Answer > Bo sez not the same, static quality is not substance its what we can percieve > of dynamic quality. Like waves in the ocean. > > Question > But thats still naming physical reality, the reality we percieve > as universally absolute for all observers. > > duhoo! > > never mind that, you're just ignorant Ron, you don't understand the MoQ like > Bo does. > you sir, are a disapointment, a mental midget go to the back of the class! > it's the > greater explanitory power we concern ourselves with! subjective value is > SOM's tenticals! > > Question: > Well, how are we to get scientists and physicist to start defining physical > reality in > terms of SQ/DQ? > > Answer: > Bo sez: > Through evangelism like Paul the apostle. eventually it'll take hold because > it's the next step > in human evolution. > > oh > > well exactly HOW does defining physical reality in terms of DQ/SQ have > greater explanitory power? > If you do not understand modern physics how do you know? > > Bo's explaination: > I don't know anything about quantum weirdness, it just does, trust me, I'm > brilliant!. > It's the next step in human evolution and you must be an idiot not to realize > the enormity > of this breakthrough. > > ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 3:54:33 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ > > Marsha and Ron. > > Marsha said to me (before Ron turned meteorologist) > >> I'm still with you. The Intellectual Level is about objectifying >> abstract symbols: > > To be forthcoming I may have tried to accommodate this but I feel lost, > why not the infinite simple: Intellect is the ability to distinguish between > S and O - in this case - abstract and concrete. > > My dictionary says about "INTELLECT" > > The power of mind to reason in contrast with feeling and > instinct. > > "Power of mind" we may omit for what is not PoM? "Feeling" is MOQ's > Social level and "Instinct" is the Biological, thus from inside Intellect > seen feelings are SUBJECTIVE while itself is OBJECTIVE (instincts > are too primitive to be considered). > > However, we see things from above all static levels and from there > intellect is the VALUE of this distinction. The Social level itself isn't > subjective because it is from before the S/O distinction. > > Ron has donned blinkers and not willing to see, but for those with the > full vision it's obvious. However, it's the SIMPLICITY that prevents the > true understanding of the MOQ. > > However as an exercise for Ron: In ZAMM (in the diagram page) > Pirsig depicts SOM as equal to intellect (the only level at that stage) > > As not to distract you I'll return to the "Chinese philosophy" later. > > > 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/ > 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/
