Hi Dave T. 29 Jan. you wrote:
> After my initial response to this post I was staring at the two ZaMM > diagrams and I think I had an Eureka moment. Stop don't read on go get > your copy and then follow along with me step by step. If you are going to have epiphanies this rate ....;.) Can you draw these diagram in two colors - the old and new - and send it to me as an Adobe Reader document? Now to another post I had written (to Andre) > > Objections!. The Quality Universe is "bigger" than the S/O one > > because it has swallowed it, but it is closed. In retrospect the > > static evolution ended with the realization of it all being a > > Quality evolution - i.e. the MOQ - no level beyond the > > intellectual is possible and - most important - no "intellectual > > pattern" (in the faulty sense of the MOQ being an intellectual > > pattern) is possible without the MOQ going pouf! Don't let your > > "flying" tendencies get the best of you :-) Dave: > I'd like to hear a deeper explanation of your views on this. Two > points to ponder. Historically at least it seems that evolution just > continues to evolve. So isn't it possible at some point in the > future another level could evolve?....snip About this questions we are "at the end of our tethers" (as HG Wells said). However the MOQ being open-ended may stem from Pirsig's assertion that once the Quality=Reality axiom is affirmed every "metaphysics" hereafter will be "moqs". This may be correct looking back, the SOM is now a "moq" in the sense of having become a static Q level. However looking ahead at the possibility of an irrefutable argument that the MOQ is hogwash emerging it (the MOQ) goes pouf, the SOM will reclaim the "M" and quality goes back to being something subjective. However you speak about another static LEVEL and that's a bit odd from your premises that intellect is an "idea-level". How can anything escape this if the Q tenet of the upper level level "debunking" the lower applies? The X-level regarding "ideas" to be evil? But it's just as impossible from the S/O-intellect premises. The MOQ is "out of SOM", its raison d'etre is to repair the damage that SOM (as metaphysics) has inflicted on existence. No, the MOQ is a closed universe and what is wrong with that? It's a GOOD universe > And shouldn't a metaphysical system be flexible enough to handle that? > Second doesn't the mystical part of Buddhism already claim that there > is a transcendent experience beyond intellect? Well, my contention is that the MOQ somehow corresponds to Buddhism in a much more succinct manner than the "woolly" Eastern article that - due to their underdeveloped intellectual level - had a too easy walk-over to the stage beyond. But as little as a world view that debunks Buddhism can be Buddhism a metaphysics that debunks the MOQ can be a "moq", there must be a limit to subtlety. 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/
