Hi Mark 13 Dec.you wrote :
> 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. ........... OK, you have read Pirsig. Good. Yes I do believe that the MOQ wraps the Quality Reality , I don't know how many times this issue must be chewed on: The MOQ says that Quality's dynamic aspect is indefinable and that the static ditto is laid out the known way. If this violates Quality there is a super-metaphysics - a Quality/MOQ one - and if THAT ...etc. another super-duper metaphysics ...and another, and another "ad infinitum". > ... If you think you can define things as such, then you are missing > out on the whole nature of subject/object reality. The static intellectual level's science does nothing BUT define things. > You describe > Quality as an object, which perhaps means that you should go back and > read Pirsig again. That's always a good thing do do, but after more than ten years of discussion I think I have a firm grasp of the MOQ .... what Quality is outside the MOQ I don't know. > 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. Can't believe I have described "intellect as that which senses SOM". Intellect IS the subject/object distinction .. or aggregate. Full stop. > 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? About release from SOM is an interesting point. As I understand Pirsig his claim is that the Oriental culture did have its "intellectual stage" with the Upanishads period (this following the "social" Veda one) but that it did not stick - and develop into SOM like it did in the Western world - before going on to a Quality-like insight (manifest as Buddhism/Taoism) This made the western SOM an infinitely tougher obstacle than the Eastern and makes the MOQ a more concise metaphysics than the woolly Eastern philosophy. > 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. I have the impression that I scoured all libraries' "Philosophy" shelves in search for the solution of the Mind/Matter monster (I did not know any SOM of course) in my "Sturm und Drang" years before I found it in an inconspicuous pocket book in 1978 > 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? OK, the "interaction" phrase (referring to inorganic value) was more for the rhyme, I don't know exactly what that level "does" but from intellect's physics is looks very much like interaction, but please correct me. > 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? I have claimed that we must not confuse INTELLIGENCE with MOQ'a intellectual level. Intelligence is very much a computer that can be programmed with any level's program and then we think accordingly. Right now I strive to reprogram my own feeble intelligence with MOQ's program (can be bought at www. ... :-) > 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. This post has been an effort. > 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. ;-) Bodvar > > 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/ > > > ------- End of forwarded message ------- 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/
