Platt & John.
28 Feb. Platt wrote:
> Maybe you got off on the wrong foot with your analysis. Bo has never
> claimed that SOM is intellect as you imply in your first sentence.
> Rather, SOM as created and defined by Pirsig is the value of the
> subject-object division of reality (direct experience). If we can keep
> in mind that the MOQ consists of static value pattern levels plus DQ,
> then perhaps Bo's interpretation will be better understood.
> But, maybe not. And as always, I could be wrong.
You are right, the SOM as described in ZAMM as an usurpator of
Quality becomes the value of the S/O distinction after MOQ's DQ/SQ
having taken over the "M" rank, and it's natural and inevitable place
becomes that of the 4th. static level. Thereby all is puzzle pieces find
their place..
John the "besserwisser":
> When words fail to get through, use CAPITALIZED WORDS. Heh. Man, So
> much angst over such a simple concept.
It's not simple, but a new REALITY (caps!!)
> Here's the thing that seems to be missing from Bo's brain. SOM isn't
> intellect, it's the idea, or assertion that intellect is the basis of
> everything.
The S/O distinction being MOQ's 4th. level is not missing in my brain,
it overflows with it. The assertion that intellect is "the basis of
everything" - i.e. sounds like SOM's "mind" - is what fills most brains
around this place.
> The MoQ counters that metaphysical stance with the stance that says
> Quality is the center of all that is, the generator of intellect, the
> creator of objectification - we think intellect is all because that's
> where we live, breathe and have our being. But there's obviously more
> to the picture than intellectual objectivity, as illustrated by many
> great thinkers throughout history. Intellectual objectivity is asinine
> by itself. Haven't we been over this a hundred times in a hundred ways?
About the MOQ countering is right, but no "great thinkers" has made
a new dynamic/static metaphysical system, of which the topmost
static level is "intellect" and THIS being the objective-over-subjective
distinction. Just lamenting objectivity and hint to something beyond
does not bring relief. Yes intellectual objectivity is asinine, but
rejecting the greatest achievement which has brought us
MODERNITY is the just as asinine. The MOQ let us have the cake
and eat it.
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/md/archives.html
>
>
>
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/md/archives.html
