Hey Bo,
Thanks for the mention. Perhaps what I'm missing is the monistic nature
of the MOQ, i.e., the central idea that 1) there is no actual split in reality
between subject and object even though we usually live as if there is,
and 2) that this Oneness of reality (Northingness, Absolute, Being,
Essence, Allah, God, etc) is Quality, the immediate, intuitive,
involuntary direct value experience. (I was about to write "experience of
value" but that introduces the deceptive duality-assuming word, "of" as
in "The object of my affections.")
In the Baggini papers I found this from Pirsig:
"You are correct in saying that the revolutionary assertion of the
Metaphysics of Quality is that "Quality' or "value" is the fundamental
constituent of the universe. However, the classification of metaphysics
into monism, dualism and pluralism, seems to me to be an arbitrary
classification where none is needed. The Metaphysics of Quality is all
three: Quality is the monism. Static quality and Dynamic Quality are the
dualism, and the four levels of static quality contain a pluralism of
things."
Here we see the beauty of the MOQ. It covers all the philosophical
bases. And now I see that my error in attempting to reconcile the
intellectual level with the MOQ was to see it only from the
static/Dynamic split. But, I have an excuse. Our language, the means by
which we find and communicate meaning, passionately embraces the
subject/object division, so passionately in fact that we can only escape
its grip with colossal effort. What's more, the effort hardly seems to have
much value since the assumption of a threatening environment "out
there" (Ex: global warming) gets us pellets (if you are Al Gore, millions
of pellets).
Anyway, I wonder if the valuistic non-dual mode is what you believe to
be the MOQ's key virtue. Or have I mussed your point again?
Regards,
Platt
On 13 Dec 2009 at 9:24, [email protected] wrote:
> Mister Kulp
>
> Dec 11.
>
> I had said:
> > > If the human brain (I guess you mean the human mind) has created
> > > SOM (the mind/matter metaphysics) then it has created the MOQ as
> > > well, and we have a "human brain metaphysics". Oh shit you will not even
> > > understand the irony, forget it. I spoke to John about the MOQ requiring
> > > centuries for people beginning to understand ... see you in "2209.
>
> Ron:
> > I think thats a little too optimistic....how can you expect humans to
> > evolve to such an advanced level as yourself in such a short time?
> > genius must be soo lonely. poor Bodvar
>
> I'm a most mediocre person who don't dare take intelligence tests for
> fear of being exposed as a moron. Attempts at self-mocking aside. I
> wonder what made me an "antenna" for the Quality Idea, and what it
> is that blocks your reception?. There have been those who are
> sympathetic towards me personally, Platt primarily, but the closest he
> has come is of the MOQ as both an intellectual pattern and
> something "dynamic" beyond, which is not right -IMO - the MOQ has
> intellect as a subset and can't be a subset of its own subset without
> violating the container logic. Besides, the MOQ is the MOQ and
> neither dynamic nor static, but a new existential level. There there
> has been a succession of people who - possibly - found my posts
> "impressive", yourself among those, but all have proved "duds" ...
> except Mati Palm-Leis that is. Andre the one who most persistently
> have tried to understand, but the intellectual level as SOM and SOM
> alone is his stumbling stone as it has been to so many, but is the
> MOQ's "to be or not to be".
>
> 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/
