Jon,
Might you offer a few sentences explaining how Dooyeweerd's Theory of Modal Aspects and the MoQ are related? Marsha On Apr 5, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Jon Bennett wrote: > This link might have been a bette one to start with as it gets to the heart > of your questions about different sphere's or modal aspects to reality, and > how they are related. > http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/aspects.html > > > > On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 1:54 AM, Jon Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Group, >> >> I brand new to this group and look forward to the discussions. For starters >> let me say that Prisig and others have tried to find the answer to dualism, >> reductionism, etc. in eastern philosophy and religion. I think this is a >> false path. >> >> Here is a fascinating answer to the problems you, and Prisig, pose from >> a Christian philosopher. >> http://www.dooy.salford.ac.uk/ >> >> Regardless of your believe system, you will have to admire the scholarship >> and prodigious effort and creativity of this unique and fascinating thinker. >> I suggest you google Herman Dooyeweerd and read some of his writing. I'll be >> happy to direct you to more links if you need. It will enhance your >> understanding of moq and everything else. >> >> Look forward to getting to know you guys better and having quality >> discussions. >> >> Jon >> >> On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM, Mary <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello Horse, Bo, Marsha, Ron, ...! >>> >>> Horse quotes From Lila's Child: >>> Bo: A while back, we spoke about the emergence of intellect and I said >>> that >>> in a way Subject/Object Metaphysics could be seen as identical to the >>> intellectual level of the MOQ! >>> Pirsig: This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude non-subject-object >>> constructions such as symbolic logic, higher mathematics, and computer >>> languages from the intellectual level and gives them no home. Also the >>> term >>> "quality" as used in the MOQ would be excluded from the intellectual >>> level. >>> In fact, the MOQ, which gives intellectual meaning to the term quality, >>> would also have to be excluded from the intellectual level.If we just say >>> the intellect is the manipulation of language-derived symbols for >>> experience, these problems of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur. >>> >>> All rightee! Let's roll up our sleeves and get down to it! >>> >>> Question 1: What is the Intellectual Level, and specifically, what makes >>> it >>> different from the Social Level? >>> Question 2: What is Subject-Object Logic? >>> >>> I have a secret. I have asked for examples of non-SOL thinking that >>> supports the idea that Eastern Metaphysics would be excluded from the MoQ >>> if >>> the intellectual level were defined as SOL or SOM. Nobody has answered >>> this >>> to my satisfaction. I think this is because before we can answer question >>> 1 >>> we must answer question 2. I disagree with Pirsig above, "This seems too >>> restrictive. It seems to exclude non-subject-object constructions such as >>> symbolic logic, higher mathematics, and computer languages from the >>> intellectual level and gives them no home." Huh? I think he is watering >>> down his own metaphysics by adopting a very narrow definition of >>> Subject-Object logic. >>> >>> Here's the deal. Everything I can think of, every single thought I am >>> capable of having, is completely MIRED in Subject-Object Logic. I have >>> never had a single thought in which I were not a discrete entity in the >>> thought relationship. If I am thinking about any kind of mathematics, >>> symbolic logic, or a computer program, everything about those thoughts is >>> discrete. X+2=5. Solve for X. I am doing the solving for the quantity X >>> which is outside of myself. For that matter, so is the 2 and the 5 and >>> the >>> equals sign. I am not at "one" with that mathematical equation. It >>> represents discrete entities from "my" perspective, where I am also a >>> discrete entity. I challenge you to think of any "thing" or "situation" >>> were this is not true. I can conceptualize all sorts of things. I can >>> even >>> imagine what it would be like to achieve Eastern Nirvana - but who is >>> doing >>> the conceptualizing? Who just achieved Nirvana? Me. I am totally mired >>> in >>> my static patterns. I have hands and feet and my feet differ from the >>> floor >>> - they are not at one with the floor. I am discrete, and discretion is >>> the >>> better part of valor (sorry, couldn't resist). >>> >>> We are all totally mired in Subject-Object Logic for every minute of every >>> day everywhere. The breakthrough, the singular THING that makes the MoQ >>> so >>> important is that Pirsig was the FIRST PERSON EVER in the WEST to stand up >>> and point that out. His idea is enormous. Every metaphysics the West is >>> founded upon, everything we think we believe, everything we do is based on >>> this fundamental principle of DISCRETENESS. I am different from you. I >>> am >>> "in" the world, a part of the world, but I am not the world. This we >>> believe in the West and all other Western metaphysics takes this as a >>> given. >>> It is not questioned. It is not examined. The enormity of Zen and then >>> Lila was when this one small voice, Robert M. Pirsig, sat at a typewriter >>> and wrote down the idea that the Universe as we know it is not composed of >>> subjects and objects - discrete things - but is composed of value and >>> Quality. Wow! >>> >>> If that puts Eastern Metaphysics outside the bounds of the Intellectual >>> Level, then so be it. So what? I say that rather than "demoting" Eastern >>> Buddhism or whatever to a "lower" level, what this implies is that the MoQ >>> is on the SAME level as any Eastern Metaphysics that says essentially the >>> same thing, and that BOTH are ABOVE the Intellectual Level. Is there >>> something wrong with that? Is it a heresy in this group to admit that >>> maybe >>> Pirsig isn't the only one that's ever had this idea? He's just the only >>> one >>> in the West - the only one I could understand. >>> >>> Sorry. Now that I've beaten question 2 to death with a blunt instrument, >>> I >>> want to tackle question 1. Next post... :) >>> >>> Mary >>> >>> - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. >>> >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Horse >>>> Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 1:07 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: [MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment >>>> >>>> Hi Bo >>>> >>>> On 31/03/2010 08:11, [email protected] wrote: >>>>> Hi Horse >>>>> >>>>> You know how to revive the discussion when at a low, just introduce >>>>> the SOL ;-) >>>>> >>>>> 30 March you wrote (to Mary who had provided a long list of quotes >>>>> that support the SOL) : >>>>> >>>>> Admittedly none directly say "the 4th. level is the subject/object >>>>> distinction " but because intellect is the level that strives to >>>> control >>>>> social values and none of the intellectual definitions hitherto >>>> provided >>>>> explains any social control except the "objective attitude" i.e. the >>>> SOL. >>>>> See? >>>>> >>>> >>>> There's a good reason why Pirsig doesn't say directly (or indirectly or >>>> by implication etc.) that the Intellectual level is the subject/object >>>> distinction. It's because he doesn't see it that way. He also doesn't >>>> appear to agree with you that an "objective attitude" (whatever that >>>> may >>>> be) is required to prevent Social patterns dominating Intellectual >>>> patterns. This is just your incorrect interpretation. >>>> >>>>> Mary (ZAMM ): >>>>> >>>>>>> , the day Socrates died to establish the independence >>>>>>> of intellectual patterns from their social origins. Or the day >>>>>>> Descartes decided to start with himself as an ultimate source of >>>>>>> reality. These were days of evolutionary transformation. >>>>>>> >>>>> This one however is a direct and unequivocal SOL support. Socrates >>>>> represents SOM in moqspeak and if he also represents "the >>>>> independence of intellectual patterns from their social origins ..." >>>> ipso >>>>> facto! This goes for Descartes too. How Pirsig could write this in >>>>> ZAMM and then - in LILA - become so vague is a mystery. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Probably because he had twenty years or so to think about it. Vague? To >>>> you maybe but not for most of us. You tend to see what you want to see >>>> and ignore everything else that doesn't fit in with your views and >>>> pre-dispositions. There is no support for the SOL in what Pirsig has >>>> written. He has stated this quite clearly on a number of occasions. >>>> >>>> From Lila's Child: >>>> Bo: A while back, we spoke about the emergence of intellect and I said >>>> that in a way Subject/Object Metaphysics could be seen as identical to >>>> the intellectual level of the MOQ! >>>> Pirsig: This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude >>>> non-subject-object constructions such as symbolic logic, higher >>>> mathematics, and computer languages from the intellectual level and >>>> gives them no home. Also the term "quality" as used in the MOQ would be >>>> excluded from the intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives >>>> intellectual meaning to the term quality, would also have to be >>>> excluded >>>> from the intellectual level.If we just say the intellect is the >>>> manipulation of language-derived symbols for experience, these problems >>>> of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur. >>>> >>>> Bo: Long before the Lila Squad days, it had puzzled me greatly that >>>> Subject/Object metaphysics may be viewed as the intellectual level of >>>> MOQ! I even raised the question in a letter to Pirsig, but he did not >>>> respond. >>>> Pirsig: 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. >>>> >>>> Personally, I'd call that direct and unequivocal rejection of the SOL! >>>> >>>>> Horse: >>>>> >>>>>> The above show that Pirsig supports the moral hierarchy of the MoQ - >>>>>> i.e. that Intellectual patterns of Value should dominate Social >>>>>> patterns of Value. >>>>>> >>>>> Right, but how the heck can - for instance - manipulation of symbols >>>>> "dominate social patterns of value"? Language is manipulation >>>> ...etc. >>>>> and it has been around since the Neanderthals. Come to your senses! >>>>> >>>> >>>> Come to your own Bo! How do Social patterns control Biological >>>> patterns? >>>> The analogy is obvious. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> In the above, where is he showing support for Bo's idea that the >>>>>> Intellectual level consists of purely Subjects and Objects? >>>>>> >>>>> "Consists of purely subjects and object"!!! What nonsense! >>>> Intellectual >>>>> value is the "Objective over subjective" capability. >>>> >>>> According to you Bo. Not according to Pirsig or the MoQ - see the above >>>> quotes from Lila's Child and whole bunch of other quotes as well. >>>> >>>> >>>>> However, for this to occur the S/O distinction was first to be >>>> established, thus "subjective" is indigenous to intellect - its >>>> derogatory term for all that is >>>>> untrustworthy. The social level knows no S/O. A true believer will >>>> deny that God just exists in his/her mind. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yep - and they''re wrong as well no matter how strong their belief. >>>> >>>> As far as I have seen so far Bo, there is little intellectual support >>>> for your interpretation of the MoQ - certainly none from Pirsig. You >>>> rely on misinterpretation, rejection of data that doesn't fit your way >>>> of thinking and even go so far as to say that the originator of the MoQ >>>> project doesn't understand his own work.Your interpretation forces you >>>> to mangle the MoQ in order to satisfy your own ego - Social patterns >>>> undermining Intellectual patterns! >>>> >>>> >>>> Horse >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of >>>> arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid >>>> in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly >>>> used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... >>>> Hunter S Thompson >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 >>> >> >> > 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
