Platt, Bodvar, Then both of you assert that MoQ IS "being" and that the intellectual level IS The belief "that the principles of mathematics are the principles of all things."
-Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 9:22:41 AM Subject: Re: [MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment On 23 Feb 2010 at 10:44, [email protected] wrote: > O'hoi Platt Would that be "Ahoy Platt," a navy greeting? > 22 Feb. u wrote: Platt > > Just so I'm clear about your argument are you saying that computer > > languages and higher mathematics rightfully belong at the social level > > because they are merely extensions of language and calculation that > > began long before S/O dualism that marks Pirsig's intellectual emerged > > on scene? Bo > I tried to say - in my peculiar "shorthand" writing style - that the term > mathematics , algebra, geometry ... are names that the intellectual > level put on various means of calculation, "math" using numbers as > symbols, "algebra" using letters, "geometry" using figures, but pebbles, > lines in sand, beads on an abacus .. etc are symbols all right, so > calculating itself is infinitely older than the 4th. level. Platt Makes sense to me. Calculation goes way back, long before the S/O dualism emerged. Bo > It has its origin at the same level as the ability to think, namely biology, > but the term "thinking" as a subjective activity contrasted to the objects > for thinking is intellect's S/O, however, no static level knows the level > context, they believe everything is their own legitimate property, hence > Intellect's claim on "thinking" and its results like calculation in all > forms, > including "higher mathematics" . Platt The claims of intellect are truly outrageous. It wants to sweep up everything in its path. But, unless it has read and digested the MOQ, it remains largely ignorant of its S/O assumptions and why and how such assumptions inevitably lead humanity to T.S. Eliot's "Wasteland." Platt > > The only problem remaining for me in your theory is the need to posit > > a meta-level for the MOQ which seems to replace Pirsig's suggestion of > > a higher level of art. I understand your (and Pirsig's) "container" > > argument, but still something just doesn't seem to fit right when it > > comes to a meta-level reality. I'll work on it. Maybe my idea of > > beauty being both immanent and transcendent can supply the missing > > link. Bo > At this point we are at the limits. Pirsig does not really suggest a level > but "a code of art" beyond intellect which means something that wants > to "debunk" intellect and that must necessarily be the MOQ, the > Quality Reality. Platt I've always considered Lila a work of art as well as revelation of reality. So I'll drop the meta-level idea and simply call the MOQ the Quality Reality, referring those who vehemently object to Pirsig's own words: "You can't have Box "A" contain within itself Box "B," which in turn contains Box "A." That's whacko." (Lila, 4) Whacko, indeed. Platt 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/
