----- Original Message ----
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 3:53:49 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Quality is Appreciation in Value
For Bo
5 Oct.
I had said
> The point is The "static inorganic level" is an example of how looking
> at experience in terms of evolutionary theory , a theory based in SOM,
> can be expanded. It is expanded by looking at them in terms of
> personal values. Subjectivism dissolves the moment Ojectivism does.
> How can there be an "in here" reflection of an independant "out
> there" universe, when that universe is relative to our own
> experiences?
Bo replies:
I'm not all sure what the point of the this is, but the MOQ truly is about
evolution - evolution of Quality. That subjectivism dissolves the
moment objectivism does we agree about. Thus the universe is NOT
our own (i.e. subjective) experience, but Quality's first static level.
Ron:
The universe is dynamic and ever changing it is indefinable in any
absolute terms. Pirsig says we know it by patterns of value.
Continuity of meaning in experience..meaning hinges on memory,
meaning is composed of biography. Meaning is value. Value
is the value of our own experience, the only value I can ever truly "know"
with any certainty.
The theory of Evolution is rooted in SOM. This must be kept in mind! it views
history
as objective! the THEORY of evolution is a THEORY, a damn useful one, It
explains
experience more accurately than creationism.
When the theory of evolution is explained with the MoQ's theory of value, it
explains
experience in even greater clarity and detail.
This means dropping the notion of evolution being an objective account of
history.
There is no objective account of history. Never was. People believed it was.
This belief
is what shot evolution full of holes and platypus. It created paradox and
problems.
> No seesaw..not "untenable" because Objectivism dissolves so does
> subjectivism. This is what you are not understanding. The dilemma is
> What can we say that we can be certain of? Pirsig says value.
Bo:
I understand perfectly that subject and object aren't two separate
realities - as SOM wants it - the one is dependent on the other, in other
words AN AGGREGATE,namely MOQ's 4th level, it's the only
interpretation that makes sense and LILA (inadvertently or not)
displays this again and again.
Ron:
It's the only way it makes sense to YOU. Lets be accurate here.
there are many others that see it as a dominate system of
intellectual patterns, one that believes it views reality as it IS.
This is false. Why incase this false belief and raise it as the
highest good? it clearly is not! it is a useful but false belief!
Bo before:
> Not in the MOQ where science it is a STATIC intellectual pattern and
> not burdened with metaphysical proof. But Pirsig's idea about Q-
> science branches - a Q-physics f.ex. - is still-born.
Ron:
> News flash, a Q-physics is functioning and expanding as we speak. It's
> all about proving their calculations make accurate predictions in
> observation.
Bo:
I meant a Quality variety of all scientific branches (as Pirsig hints to in
LILA) you seem to mean Quantum Physics? No?
Ron:
He also demonstrates a Quality variety of evolution which you
seem to take as fact, when he clearly states there are no facts
only opinions beliefs and theories.
The moment you take evolution as fact you dip back into objective
assumptions. "The inorganic level as DQ's first static fallout" is
an objective assumption. Objective reality does not exist. So we may
never know if "inorganic" patterns emerge from DQ. It will never be
more than a theory, an idea, an assumption. It can NEVER be more
because Objective reality is an illusion. The first tenet of MoQ
understanding.
Ron earlier
> > > What we subjectivly interpret depends on what we value. And what we
> > > value is based largely on experience (which we have found we can not
> > > completely and absolutely understand based on what we have found)
> > > because....drumrole...it's dynamic and everchanging!. It may not be
> > > defined because it can't be defined. All we can ever do with our
> > > limited viewpoint is struggle to comprehend it by creating simplistic,
> > > limited, exaggerated concepts (static quality).
Bo:
> > I say no more
Ron:
> Why not? this was the part I was looking forward to you addressing.
> Why do you dodge it?
Bo:
OK if you hanker for my comment.
"What we subjectively ...." you write. Now, if one understands the
MOQ and returns (with that understanding) to our static abode where
intellect it's the highest one may freely use intellect's lingo based on
the subject that operates in an objective world. But I'm afraid you still
wander around in some no-man's land. To repeat your sentence
"What we subjectively interpret depends on our value". What's the
subject who interprets? It sounds conspicuously like SOM's self.
Ron:
I'm trying to explain the position in terms you will understand for you seem
to want to take an objective angle of the whole MoQ, you somehow believe
taking an objective interpretation of MoQ will bridge the gap in usefulness
and understanding, but all it does is recreate the false assumptions of SOM
again...
the belief that we may know what reality IS absolutely, that we can define what
is
indefinable, know what is unknowable in any definite sense. The moment it is
understood
it becomes static and fixed and distinct from what it is, which is incaplable
of
being understood. To understand it is to limit it. Limiting it, is not it. For
it is limitless.
Dynamic.
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/
