Bodvar to Andre: Our exchange has its ups and downs, this is an "up".
Andre; And this depends upon the extent to which I agree with you...or not? Bodvar: > 2) in LILA the MoQ emerges from the SOM intellectual level AND therefore > cannot be seen as operating from that same intellectual level. Right! ....only my standard comment: The MOQ is no static level, but the Quality Reality. It only looks like a level in its relationship with intellect Andre: (This is a sensitive issue). I would suggest that the 'M' is a static level, the Q isn't. Bodvar: Again. Spot on! However "the above intellect" term is an intermediate or temporary expression, the MOQ is the Quality Premises we "live and think" from. Andre: That's why I put it in brackets. Bodvar: Yes, but one point must be stressed: People from before the 4th. level surely saw their "objects" as different from themselves, they just didn't regard their perception of it as"subjective" Andre: I do not know Bodvar. I wasn't around then. But there is something not quite right in your statement. Without regarding their perception as subjective how can 'objects' seen be considered 'different' from themselves...(or is this an intellectual level question?). Bodvar: > ( they are also non-empirical i.e. I have never seen or experienced a > 'subject' or 'object' in my life! nor anyone else, No, Andre, this is not MOQ's complaint against the SOM, this is the S/O-created wilderness. Andre: Surely it is an observation from a MoQ 'point-of-view'? I have never heard a 'SOMist' question this formulation. From a MoQ point of view can SOM not be regarded as the cultural level (social- plus SOM intellectual PoV's...I think Ron hinted at this a while back) and maintaining the MoQ intellectual level as the Q-level? (Just brainstorming). So you get: inorganic, organic, cultural, intellectual PoV's. Bodvar: I'm aware of this, but "logic itself" is no intellectual pattern, rather an aspect of Quality itself. Only when formally worked out (by Bertrand Russell) to show how/why 2+2=4 is objectively valid.. Andre: I do not understand this Bodvar. Not being a mathematician...! I thought the point of the Poincarre episode was that even the formulation of 2+2 is 4 is arrived at by convention and not objectively true??? Bodvar: The MOQ builds on intellect (in the level-like context) and intellect's S/O-vocabulary can't be scrapped in the same sense that intellect can't scrap social terms from lnaguage. Andre: Yes, although Pirsig doesn't use this expression. He says that the MoQ 'expands' and 'encapsulates' our current mode of SOM thinking. Enough for now Bodvar. Remember there are many questions still outstanding. I am enjoying this exchange and please do not think I am doing this for the fun of it. I find it difficult to stay away from the fridge, the bar and my lady!!! Kind regards Andre 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/
