Ron 22 Feb.you said > After searching all through "Lila's child", I could not find the quote > you claim RMP to have said:""... I fully agree with Bo's insight that > the SOM and the intellectual level are one and the same. To support it > , to protect it, to avoid losing it and sinking back to "anything > goes" irrationalism or a "because God says so" mentality ...and ends > with saying "..To that end the MOQ is the best S/O answer I've found > yet." you say it lies in (page 396 in Lila's Child) what I have > found:
I operate from two "bases", here at my painting studio in the "wilderness" and with my wife in town and the mentioned post resides in the town machine so I can't check it at the moment, and searching the archives ... phew! Anyway I can't believe I attributed the quote to Pirsig, it was Platt of course.. Bodvar > > The MOQ does not deny the traditional scientific view of reality as > composed of material substance and independent of us. It says it is an > extremely high quality idea. We should follow it whenever it is > practical to do so. But the MOQ, like philosophic idealism, says this > scientific view of reality is still an idea. If it were not an idea, > then that "independent scientific material reality" would not be > able to change as new scientific discoveries come in. RMP Annotation > 25This is okay. In who is up to reading MOQ precision, let´s say > that the intellectual level is the same as mind. It is the collection > and manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for > patterns of experience. RMP:Anders is slipping into the > materialist assumption that there is a huge world out there that has > nothing to do with people. The MOQ says that is a high quality > assumption, within limits. One of its limits is that without humans to > make it that assumption cannot be made. It is a human specific > assumption. Strictly speaking, Anders has never heard of or ever will > hear of anything that isn´t human specific.DG:So I take it > philosophic idealism is a higher quality intellectual idea in this > situation vs. the physicist working in the lab who would find > materialism to be of higher value?RMP:That sounds right, although > modern physics has produced laboratory paradoxes for materialists that > do not exist for idealists. I think it is best to understand both > systems, and shift from one to another as it becomes valuable to do > so. RMP Annotation 86Since in the MOQ all divisions of Quality are > static, it follows that high and low are subdivisions of static > quality. "Static" and "Dynamic" are also subdivisions of > static quality, since the MOQ is itself a static intellectual pattern > of Quality. RMP Annotation 97Within the MOQ, the considered to be a > good MOQ, like science, starts with human experience. Remember the > early talk in ZMM about Newton´s Law of Gravity? Scientific laws > without people to write them are a scientific impossibility. RMP:In > the late 1800´s the chicken-and-egg argument about whether ideas > precede inorganic nature or inorganic nature precedes ideas was > considered philosophically important. No one to my knowledge has ever > shown that the idealists who considered ideas to come first have been > wrong. The discussion has since died away. It is important for an > understanding of the MOQ to see that although "common sense" > dictates that inorganic nature came first, actually "common sense" > which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This "common sense" is > arrived at through a huge web of socially approved evaluations of > various alternatives. The key term here is "evaluation," i.e., > quality decisions. The fundamental reality is not the common sense or > the objects and laws approved of by common sense but the approval > itself and the quality that leads to it. RMP Annotation 132It > employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social structures > such as courts and journals and learned societies to make itself > known. SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social structures, > and the MOQ is not subordinate to the SOM structures it employs. > Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an object or a > subject or anything else. It is understood by direct experience only > and not by reasoning of any kind. Therefore to say that the MOQ is > based on SOM reasoning is as useful as saying that the Ten > Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn´t tell us anything > about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn´t tell us > anything about the essence of the MOQ. 95. I don´t remember not > responding, so it must have been an oversight. I don´t think the > subject-object level is identical with intellect. Intellect is simply > thinking, and one can think without involving the subject-object > relationship. Computer language is not primarily structured into > subjects and objects. Algebra has no subjects and objects.idea that > static patterns of value start with the inorganic level isidea. But > the MOQ itself doesn´t start before sentience. TheLila, I never > defined the intellectual level of the MOQ, since everyoneLila already > knows what "intellectual" means. For purposes of > > > > 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/
