Mati to Andre:
I apologize for butting in, but quality is the sum of both DQ/SQ.
Andre:
No need to apoplogise Mati, I need all the help I can get on this one.
Mati:
But to understand intellect, and cut the SOM tethers we need to
separate it from DQ, and see what we have. When we do this we see
that SOM is naked as a J-Bird, a static pattern that exists separate
unto itself. When it cloaks itself in DQ, then it continues the
deception itself is greater than a function of a static pattern, such
as "mind".
Andre:
I am slowly but surely beginning to understand the deceptive nature of
SOM Mati, since a S/O Metaphysics denies the existence of values
(morality,Quality). What I continue to have problems with is Bodvar's
assertion that 'intellect' (as the dominating, all absorbing
influence) is the sole Lord and Master of the intellectual level and
that, until this is accepted, one's understanding of the MoQ is
fundamentally flawed. (hope I am not misrepresenting your thesis
Bodvar).
I must admit, the more I think about this, (and see,listen and hear)
and reflect on this, it does make a lot of sense. BUT does this mean
that all that has gone before i.e. before Pirsig presented his MoQ to
the world, that all of it was SOM? All the great works of Art
(painting, poetry, music, sculpture, literature, inventions, etc, etc)
that it can all be 'dismissed' as residing within SOM and therefore
relegated to a lesser plane?
The narrator in ZMM was, of his own admission, a 'square', steeped in
SOM, scientifically, analytically inclined. But he met his 'hip'
friends telling him to just 'get with it'. The 'romantically'
inclined.
Phaedrus tells us that, with Aristotle 'our scientific' understanding
of reality was born. This intellectual emergence from the social led ,
over time, to the full blown development of SOM.
Do you understand where I am getting at Mati ( and Bodvar)? If that is
the one and only development, from where sprang the 'alternatives',
the 'get with it' people?
Now, as Ron points out as well, Bodvar would treat these
'alternatives' , these SOM 'mutants' as not really counting for
anything. These were the ones ending up on the stake or in the
asylums, or else completely ostracised from society.
But what possibly happened to these unfortunates is not the point I am
trying to make, the point is that they were responding (and , no
doubt, reasoning, arguing) against situations they found
oppressive...'unreal'. They were raging against SOM! (imho)
Perhaps it will be argued that these were SOM 'variations' . That when
you get right down to it, for example, John and Sylvia were SOMists?
Perhaps I am clutching at a few stubbornly remaining SOM straws?
Is Bodvar's SOL not a Western-cultural (i.e. social/intellectual)
interpretation of experience and not a universal one? If it is
universal, how does the SOL account for the 'Eastern intellect' (if
there is such a thing? This Eastern 'attitude' appears to completely
bypass the importance or rather, predominace of the S/O distinction.
They are much more into the 'immediate' experience thing and not, as
its Western variant the 'arising out of experience' concepts by
postulation (to Borrow Northrop's terminology...and hoping I do not
misinterpret him!)
How does the SOL account for these, quite different 'analytical'
processes? Leading, of course to quite different ways of 'being' (in)
this world.
Mati:
I realize that middle of the Quality road seems a safe place to be,
however the median of the DQ/SQ forces us to drive one side or the
other.
Andre:
A few hours after I had sent this post, I realised that my final
comment ('Andre, the stubborn Dutchie living and working in the Middle
Land'.) could indeed be interpreted to mean this but, when I wrote it
down, I meant quite literally that I am now living and working in
Zhongguo (meaning Middle Land...meaning China).
Mati:
Respectfully submitted,
Andre:
And as such received Mati. I hope some of the above may/will be
clarified as this beast of an issue has been dogging this Discuss on
and off for over a decade now, and me for the past 2 years. Perhaps
there simply is not one all conquering/dominating SOL(e)
interpretation required that leads to a full appreciation of the
MoQ??!!
I will busy over the coming period so please bear with me. I will try
to respond...in all due time.
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/
