Andre, You say:
"Christ allmighty. Before the MoQ I had a girlfriend- now, with the MoQ I have an analogy pointing to a girlfriend. I have nothing but a concept in my own arms sometimes! Ridiculous!" I reply: That's why you need to embrace my "M"etaphysical explanation of S/O consciousness. It's pertains more to the way things really are. The center of existence is boobs. (The "M" in "M"etaphysics needs to have a more rounded shape, but I don't know what fonts your machine gets - that's the trouble with words in our culture, they only analogize intellectually rather than symbolically like SOME languages you know.) Self-other realization is accomplished on an emotional level before it is intellectualized. imo, but I like your points and admire your dialogue. John your fellow electric-blanket fan. On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 6:05 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi All > In my post to Ron I made one and other clear based on my reading of > Northrop. Reflecting on what I said I came to the conclusion that I > hadn't been 'radical' enough. Language, words we use, are social > PoV's. They do not operate outside the DQ/SQ configuration. They are a > fundamental part of it. > To suggest that words are something else to what they denote is to > fall victim to symbolism and makes a mockery of this social PoV. > > Why, for example does the MoQ avoid, nee refuses to use the term 'God'? > Because it has low quality connotations and associations and does not > accurately represent Quality. > > Why does the MoQ do away with words such as 'substance', > 'cause-and-effect' and replaces them with 'patterns' and 'preferences' > ? Because these reflect the relationships in the levels more > accurately. > The MoQ means what it claims and it is the most profound claim ever made! > > Why this distortion of words and their meaning? Why suggest that words > are analogies? Within the MoQ perspective they are not. > I think it may be the SOM legacy that has made such a mess of things. > Confused things so much that we do not know whether we are coming or > going. Part of this confusion is outlined in both ZMM and LILA and > which I tried to make clear to Ron. > > An event happens...direct experience...but we have to wait for the > written reports to appear ( plus a recommendation to visit the shrink > umpteen times) to be told what 'really' happened. And that what we do > find in these reports are SOM interpretations. So called factual, so > called, scientific, so called independent and so called objective. > Words in the service of S/O intellect. > > A social PoV has become the plaything of intellect. The way poor > Phaedrus was torn to bits by Socrates. When this happens you can see > that the higher level pattern rips the lower level pattern out of its > context...resulting in deletion, distortion and generalisation...plus > a host of other things that gave 'life' to the pattern at which level > it originated. > > This SOM pattern as Intellect, this scientific understanding of > reality was 'fathered' by Aristotle. It was around this time it was > born. I argue that it was still- born ( no offence intended to anyone > who has ever experienced such a tragedy). It lay in suspended > animation for centuries and was only used by the Christian Church to > further their own cause ( e.g. Thomas Aquinas) and to make the > Christian doctrine at least a little more 'truth- acceptable, to be > founded upon scientific Platonic/Aristotelian doctrines, to give it > credence and the power to wield this 'evidence' to the contrary during > the Terror of the Spanish Inquisition. > > Come Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Descartes, Newton, Locke etc > etc. Aristotle's scientific doctrine is resurrected. (Still fear of > the Church with whom it has now close ties). > > Pirsig argues that this pattern, now slightly modified to accomodate > new discoveries and especially Descrates, was actively employed to > dominate society on Nov. 11, 1919. Armistice Day. By then SOM had > developed into a full- fledged adolescent however, with no 'modern' > social experience. (it came from Greek culture, through the Dark Ages > and ended up being employed at the start of the twentieth century. It > got the job of managing a system it was never trained for. It never > completed its apprenticeship (it could be argued it is doing it now!). > > It had no idea what it was confronted with- the connection between it > and its parent level had been severed many, many centuries before. > They were strangers to one another. It went off on a tangent of its > own, creating neologisms left, right and centre to bridge the > unavoidable and unfatomable gap...to no avail. ZMM discusses this > beautifully. > > Words, as social PoV's became empty and this is why there is unrest, > in the West at the social level which expresses itself in the crisis > of Democracy, crises in Education, crises in the Health and Welfare > sector, the Economic sector... everywhere. A rust-belt Pirsig tems it, > and he is right. > > I began wandering about the birth of this pattern. I believe it can be > argued, based on my own piddly effort and Pirsig's insight that this > scientific understanding has not fully emerged into the intellectual > level as MoQ level. Pirsig asks, rightly, is science, in fact, > independent of society ..and answers not at all. Aristotelian science > and its developments are in fact not separate from society at all. It > is a farce to suggest otherwise. > > This makes for an opening: if that is indeed the case (as the MoQ > argues) then I argue that the SOL, the subject/ object distinction is > a dominant Western CULTURAL pattern, a combination of social and > intellectual values meshed together. > > It hinges between the social and the intellectual. The SOL is a > cultural pattern of value. > > This clears up a few things: it accounts for differing cultural > integrations of the two ( e.g. Pirsig's difference between one > importance in Germany and crossing the border into France the > importance is lost). > > It accounts for a different CULTURAL development in the Orient. > > It explains Pirsig's definition in the letter to Paul Turner. > ...manipulation of symbols (and words are not symbols!!) that have no > direct...etc. and makes this fit in with the proposed view. > > That is the intellectual level proper. Pure symbol manipulation > without social pattern words. It overcomes the 'suspended in language' > thing though that challenge, that 'sales- trick' still remains. > > Now we have the MoQ. We have DQ/SQ. Let this social PoV come to its > own again within the DQ/SQ configuration (a language used is a > 'living' language). > > DQ/SQ=Reality. What else does it refer to? Concepts, abstractions, > analogies? Christ allmighty. Before the MoQ I had a girlfriend- now, > with the MoQ I have an analogy pointing to a girlfriend. I have > nothing but a concept in my own arms sometimes! Ridiculous! > > The words Pirsig uses are social PoV's with precise meanings. He is > very fussy about them as the LC annotations show. > > I am with Bodvar on this one...not sure if he is with me after this post!! > > I have the menu and have been consuming some very sumptuous meals thank > you! > > I know there are holes in this. At places I have short-circuited > things. Please consider this as a constructive suggestion only. I > respect the intellectual efforts of Bodvar and Mr. Pirsig. > > I suggest that this may get us closer to a 'solution' realising that > all is provisional and no Papal Bull. > > Time for my electric blanket. > > Good night > 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/
