Hi Bodvar, I have read Pirsig, in case you were wondering. My interpretation is different from yours. If this means that I haven't read it in the "right" way, then I apologize to you. Perhaps you believe that the definitions of Quality are all done and wrapped in a nice little package. If this is the case, then you are missing out on the whole dynamic nature of this metaphysics. If you think you can define things as such, then you are missing out on the whole nature of subject/object reality. You describe Quality as an object, which perhaps means that you should go back and read Pirsig again.
You were the one who described intellect as that which senses SOM, not SOM itself. If you want to correct your definition, please do so. If I believe that I am everything, where is the object? If I believe that I am not anything, where is the subject? Release from SOM has been taught for thousands of years, why do you claim it is new? Perhaps you have only read Pirsig and nothing else. This seems to be the case, the way you describe the history of philosophy. Perhaps one requirement for addressing this forum is to have a little knowledge of metaphysics. How is interaction inorganic? Perhaps in order to participate in this forum one should at least know what the definitions of the words used are. Inorganic, are you serious? Do you know what that means? If by intellect, you mean reason, then you really do not know what Quality is. Such intellect is an amalgamation of the five senses interpreted though a processing center called the brain. It's that simple, it is a computer. Some people have faster processors than others and are considered of high intellect. Reason is the extrapolation of a subset of assumptions into another assumption, it has nothing to do with Quality. I can reason that if I plant a seed, a tree will grow. Where is the Quality there? I can reason that I see different systems that I postulate exist at different levels, where is the Quality there? Explain to me how the Value of MoQ is better than the value of any other metaphysics, and I will show you how you are completely stuck in SOM. Value is relational. No, my friend, you are definitely drowning in SOM. The subject is Pirsig, the object is understanding. It will take a while before you manage to escape from that. I would go back to the basics, and begin again. Best of luck, Mark On Dec 13, 2009, at 9:03:08 AM, [email protected] wrote: From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] CO2 and Climate. Date: December 13, 2009 9:03:08 AM PST To: [email protected] Hi Mark 12 Dec. u wrote: > Thanks for the explanation. Now I see what you are describing "the > subject that observes the objective world". OK, I'm with you. This > has been called a number of things, I prefer the term Atman. You are not with me at all, the subject/object distinction is SOM, not any "Atman". I asked if you are have read any of Pirsig's works, you didn't answer something I take as a "no" and it shows. > Yes, the subject, which is outside the brain's logic. The brain is the > ego, in my definition. The Ego is the hardware through which the > subject experiences the objective world, the brain is also part of the > objective world. Traditionally, "intellect" means something else, but > I'm fine with this clarification, I will read your posts accordingly. The subject isn't merely outside the brain's logic, it's the Subject/Object distinction as reality's fundament which creates a host of paradoxes (=violations of any and all kind of logic) Hadn't it been for this below I would have written you off as a "Ham" case. > My point is that we have lost the descriptive emotional basis for > classifying the world around us. The world has become dead and there > is no animism. As you surely haven't noticed I ascribe an "expression" to each level: Interaction (inorganic) Sensation (biology) Emotion(society) Reason (intellect) Further, what Phaedrus of ZAMM saw as SOM ousting Quality (Aretê) was intellect taking off from its social parent ...on a purpose of its own. You are right that this looks as ourselves having lost touch with "the emotional description of the world" and what the present Social Level focussed culture - the "Semitic" (Jews and Muslims) - fights to maintain. And - if you will open a small crack for the MOQ - the reason that Intellect looks "dead, without animism" is its position as reality itself (its SOM capacity) once its MOQ context - as the S/O distinction - is realized it's a great value, the highest and best level. > I do not believe we are any smarter, we are just going > through a phase. You are right, our brain's computation capacity - AKA intelligence - has not increased since the Homo Sapiens. It's a computer that can be programmed with any program. Originally with biology's "survival" then by society's "our cause" and finally with intellects "objectivity". Now it must be re-programmed with the MOQ's program, but that's not easy. > To claim that a belief in gods is somehow inferior is > expressed most likely because you do not have that feeling. Instead > you have this feeling of Quality, which is not nearly as complex and > filling. I would suggest you do a little thinking about what gods > represent, why they are used, and why we are so much better of now > that we have provided dead nouns to things. Call the sun a ball of > flame we orbit around, or call it a god being carried across the sky > by a chariot. The MOQ claims that "belief in gods" (the social-emotional level) is statically inferior to the intellectual-rational explanation, but puts it all in a greater perspective that shows that each level is a level of the VALUE and the necessary base for the next. Even the intellectual- rational is necessary for the MOQ. > Both are just descriptions, neither right nor wrong. > Living with animism is a much fuller life than with a scientific > explanation. If that is the course of Quality, then Quality would > prefer gods. Not "just descriptions", they are different levels. > Reading or rereading stuff from Joseph Campbell would be a good place > to start. I know Campbell's, it's an excellent presentation of the social - emotional (mythological) level.But I suggest YOU to read Pirsig, its a requirement to be allowed here. 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/
