Bo, Please state which of my statements you are calling "Marshas woolly nonsense." At lease give me an opportunity to defend my position.
Marsha On Jan 2, 2010, at 8:24 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Andre > > 2 Jan. : > > Andre previously: >>> Also, logic appears to be a method of establishing 'formal', 'true' >>> relationships. Following the 'logical' path leads to 'truth' >>> statements. > > Bodvar: >> Yes, that's something different and more close to the "theorems" I'm >> harping on. Ancient people knew the Pythagoras "effect" long before >> Pythagoras, but he set out to prove that the sum of the squares ... >> etc. is valid always. That's the said intellectual attitude. But don't >> be fooled that "logic itself" only serves intellect, it was - still is >> - equally logical to a devout Muslim that Allah has given Mohammed the >> rules to live by. It's the premises that count. > > Andre now: >> I agree and suggest further that it appears to me that the >> intellectual level, because dominated by the S/O distinction, is using >> 'logic itself' as a means to dominate the social level. It does so by >> declaring emotions (biological/social responses) as subjective and >> therefore illogical. At least this is one of the ways I am beginning >> to understand you SOL thesis. > > Yes, that's exactly the way to understand the SOL. The social level (in > its heyday) did not know any "formal logic" to underpin their god-run > universe it was just natural. With intellect's advent common sense > became objectified-formalized and just as you say, the social reality > was deemed illogic, superstitious, just in minds, subjective . All these > derogatory terms are intellect's creations. > >> A few examples maybe: a hospital may run efficiently (logically) but >> as a human being one gets the feeling of being reduced to a patient >> i.e. a medical case. The 'user- friendly' interactions a syrupped >> covering over the clinical hardness of a logically organised health >> system. > > Agree, but it must be that way to be productive. > >> As a worker one is reduced to an economic unit. Expected to become >> part of a private/public economic system dominated by efficiency and >> effectiveness (results) and where the highst achievable morality is >> money (or money saving). One's social patterns (including responses) >> are supposed to be 'suspended' for the daily 8 or 10 hours work one is >> expected to put in. > >> Perhaps I am a bit too negative but seen from intellect this may not >> be untrue. > > Again, true, but what has brought prosperity to the intellect-steeped > part of the world. > >> I notice in your post to Mary that the question runs as to which side >> intellect will take...biology...society? As you muse:'...will the MoQ >> join society to quell intellect?' I hope the MoQ will take hold and >> keep on responding to Quality. When it does that it will also see that >> it needs to look after its parents, grand-parents and great-grand >> parents ( the social,organic and inorganic levels). The notion that >> intellect has developed a momentum of its own must be halted/ checked >> otherwise the rust-belt Pirsig describes in LILA will only get >> worse.Imho. ( I am partially responding here to your comment that >> 'Communism was a rational (intellectual) system...having wrecked havoc >> etc . Capitalism is an irrational economic social system which has >> brought great prosperity but at the same time also wrecking havoc...). > > A MOQ-Social alliance is - well - possible on the grounds that social > value is what originally Phaedrus saw as Quality itself (Aretê in > ZAMM) and the intellectual level (in its SOM capacity) is what > opposes MOQ the most fiercely. You see how tough the notion of > "MOQ a mere intellectual pattern" is (Steve & Co) and as long as this > prevail SOM prevails. The tragedy is that Pirsig somehow is its origin > with his QUALITY/MOQ "metaphysics" > > But what you write about the MOQ looking after its ancestors is just > right. The MOQ is the Q-context itself and only from there the > intellectual level is seen a MOQ-subset (not anything that can contain > the MOQ) and if this true context is realized things can develop the > good way. While the MOQ as something that can will occupy the > mindish-intellect and suppress rationality is dangerous. Why I fear > Steve's alleged defense of Pirsig as much as Marshas woolly > nonsense. > >> Something else yet Bodvar. In an earlier Popeye post (Dec.30) you say: >> 'However - before the MoQ, while intellect were SOM- the S/O >> distinction was regarded to be a bottomless, unbridgeable chasm, and >> because we know that the subject and object (mind and body) interact >> freely it vreated platypuses galore. This is how the MoQ resolves the >> mind/matter paradox, not Pirsig's tedious method in LILA. > >> Can you elaborate please? I don't quite follow...which 'tedious >> method'? > > > OK, the MOQ correctly profess to incorporate SOM under itself and in > this process resolving SOM's platypuses. If you have received LILA > you will find it as the (resolution of the) mind/matter platypus and in > Lila's Child (I'm out of town) as how SOM is encased. > > To begin with the last (from memory) Pirsig says that the inorganic > and organic levels are "objective" because they belong to the material > world, while the social and intellectual are subjective because they > belong to the mental world. Had he said: "From SOM seen the MOQ's > levels seem to fits these categories ...etc." but no, it sounds as if > there IS a pre-existing "mental/material" distinction that the MOQ's > static levels is subordinated to. Besides ..."life"??.. is that an objective > state? Organisms are tangible, but the quality of being alive is as > ineffable as it comes. > > Then the resolution of the mind/matter platypus. (still from memory). > where Pirsig's is based on the biological and social level being the > bridge between SOM's matter and mind. This presuppose that the > inorganic level equals "matter" and that the intellectual equals "mind" > which is wrong. Pirsig spends long passages in LILA to show that > inorganic value isn't "matter", but drops the same on intellect not > being "mind". All in all this explain s nothing, the matter/mind mystery > merely moved to between the organic and the social levels. > > The obvious solution - dissolution better - is plain and simple, namely > the mind/matter paradox is created by the intellectual level while it > was SOM, making the S/O distinction a bottomless abyss that nothing > can cross - on one side everything is mind, on the other side > everything is matter. The MOQ shows that this is merely a static > distinction, the S/O is an aggregate - one is incomplete without the > other. Why Pirsig did not see the obvious (that Phaedrus saw by > making SOM=intellect) is a mystery, but his obsession was that of > proving the unprovable Quality=Reality axiom and it left the MOQ an > unfinished symphony. > >> Re my abode here in China, English spellings differ. Try perhaps >> Shangzhou...follow road nr.312 east south east out of Xi'an. Along the >> same road, farther east there is Danfeng etc. etc. > > Will check when back. > >> Re; 'where are the Chinese Q- basically? I will respond to this at >> another time...if you don't mind. > > Good, any time > > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
