Hi Andre, The Intellectual level is the one that, for the first time, has questioned the supremacy of the S/O split. It has noticed it and found it lacking as a basis for explaining everything. The other 3 levels use the S/O split for their purposes. It works. They do not think about it at all, and if they do, it is a total given. As fundamental as bedrock. The _idea_ of the MoQ was spawned, as an _idea_, from the Intellectual level. The idea of the MoQ is now struggling to make a static latch at the Intellectual level, and will probably not do so until there are at least half a million people on this mailing list. The Intellectual is the only level that is capable of valuing asking questions about what we have always assumed. I am not saying that the MoQ is a product of the Intellectual Level. I can see that objection coming. :)
Keep warm, Mary -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andre Broersen Sent: Thursday, January 07, 2010 4:15 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics Bodvar to virtually all of us: Yes, you bet, metaphysics in the the true MOQ sense is reality, that's the very point! Hello Bodvar and All: When I read this, something dawned on me but couldn't give it expression until I lay, quietly on my electric blanket (it is fucking freezing here!). Then it came to me...the passage in ZMM (I think) where Phaedrus has a conversation with a priest and they are talking about the liturgy, the most sacred part: when the wine changes into blood, and the bread changes into the body of Christ. Phaedrus asks along the lines of; (sorry I do not have a copy of ZMM with me) yes, but this is symbolically..yeS??. No! says the priest, this is real. At that moment, the wine and bread change into the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ! Christians all over the world actually and factually believe that this is indeed the case. And, further more, the Bible is of course seen, not as a book full of stories ( if I may take the liberty, as a book full of fingers pointing to the moon!!) but as the actual word of God. Bodvar ' forced' me to think about the MoQ from this perspective (not as a religion, not as an act of faith) but as a true statement of Reality...of Quality. The positing of the MoQ in this context gave me a further glimpse into how Bodvar 'experiences' the MoQ. He firmly and absolutely believes in it...though believing is an inappropriate expression to use. And, just as the Bible is perceived as containing the actual words of God ( not symbolically but real...to our Christian believers), so is the MoQ as a metaphysics, a statement, a programme perceived by Bodvar to be a statement of Reality... of Quality written by Phaedrus. Not just any Phaedrus. No! The Phaedrus of ZMM and as on occasions he appears in LILA. This is then why Bodvar treats, for example, the reality/concept, the abstract/concrete, the reality/language, the Quality/MoQ, dichotomies with such derision. The Quality reality has 'absolved' us from these because the S/O reality has been 'overcome' by a 'higher' understanding. The DQ/SQ reality which 'contains' everything as moral patterns of value. How, Bodvar asks, can one pattern of value (language) 'make' another pattern of value any less real? The social word 'tree' (as a social PoV) is not the same as the 'tree' as an inorganic PoV? As he said to Marsha, does naming DQ detract from its reality? The bone of contention, of course remains that Bodvar argues that, the way to contain S/O thinking is to make it static and to make it the 4th level of the MoQ as the only way to overcome its influence and tentacles. This 'frees' DQ from inadvertently being placed in the service of SOM. It allows the MoQ understanding to 'reign' with SOM being firmly and securely behind (intellect[ual]) lock and key. And reign one does 'from above' and not from the same 'level'! Attempting to avoid smart remarks and the like I firmly believe that this very, very different from a religious thing so comparisons should not be made .(see the Northrop reference below) What Bodvar also asked me (or rather, through this moment of realisation) confronted me with, is to what extent I am committed to (or want to surrender to) the full implications of the MoQ.(if I accept that Bodvar does have a real, genuine point). Do I want to treat it as a stimulating academic subject? Do I want to dabble in it as a dilettante? To what extent do I accept this Q-reality and to what extent am I willing to commit myself? And, will I do this full-time or part-time? Do I want to live the MoQ? Northrop says somewhere that one does not require a 'belief' in the 'undifferentiated aesthetic continuum' (Quality). It can be apprehended immediately and thus verified. I recognise Quality through simply living/experiencing so there is no escape and the questions above are not really relevant. Question is, to what extent am I willing/committed to follow DQ and follow Good? Or, conversly, do what is (SOM) reasonable and follow S/Q with a bit of DQ when it suits me? Points to ponder but, perhaps for some this was just a boring example of soliloquise. For what it is worth. 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/ 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/
