Ok, just this part right here is the heart and soul of the MoQ, imo. It's simple, succinct and unarguable. "Quality must be higher than intellect because we value our premises and concepts."
But since Quality is indefinable, argumentation about our intellectual conception is theoretically endless. This drives some people crazy and sets others free. Count me in with the endlessly arguing, endlessly free. Tho I won't argue with Platt on either values = aesthetics or the purpose of art. Both those formulations seem good to me. I'm sure we'll find lots to argue in other areas. The value of Marx, for instance. John On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 7:16 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bo et al: > > As Bo has written, "Quality must be higher than intellect because we > value our premises and concepts." I jotted down this quote quite awhile > ago so don't know exactly where or when it appeared. But, to me it's the > clincher argument for Bo's argument about the true nature of the MOQ. I > further believe that values are synonymous with aesthetics, and that the > purpose of art is to expose DQ. > > Regards, > Platt. > > > > On 18 Apr 2010 at 17:17, [email protected] wrote: > > > Folks at home and abroad. > > > > I don't know where to butt in, but something must be noted in the > > debate about academy, philosophology and intellectualism to prevent it > > from turning into SOM's - i.e. intellect's - internal "reactionary vs > > progressive" debate where Platt is demonized and his antagonists > > makes heroes of themselves. I side with Platt because it's more than > > plain that he is on MOQ's side in the sense that the original Quality > > Idea was intended to be an attack on the "ghost of rationality" (the > > camp-fire talk in ZAMM) Later it developed into an attack on > > "academy", it's implied by the philosophy course in Chicago that > > Aristotle & Co were the foundations of the objective-over-subjective > > aproach, However, at that stage this was like thinking trying to abolish > > thinking and he lost his mind > > > > But as the Quality Idea develops it shows that rationality isn't thinking > > itself rather the very subject/object kind that replaced an older Aretê > > thinking. And from the tentative Quality Metaphysics in ZAMM it's plain > > that he meant it (the MOQ) to be a still higher turn of the "thinking > > screw" and, further, in this new system the former system (SOM) was > > meant to be the INTELLECTUAL part (it's there in plain words). And in > > the final MOQ it's also clear that the intellectual level must continue > to > > be the subject/object distinction for all puzzle pieces to fall into > their > > places. The fact that this interpretation pops up all over the place is > the > > best proof (remember Mary's many quotes). > > > > But now the clue: The "intellect" that Platt (backed by Pirsig) accuses > > of creating social nightmares isn't really MOQ's highest static level of > > good, but SOM before its Q-role is revealed - or the intellectual level > > resenting its new and humble role and strives to regain its former glory > > - and this is the bend we are in. Once the MOQ is realized (i.e. the "M" > > is removed from SOM) intellect's S/O turns into the highest static > > quality that has brought us all the good intellectual patterns listed in > > LILA. No longer can it do more than its assigned role (to prevent social > > value from doing more than ITS role is ...etc downwards) but - alas - > > the MOQ is not realized and our pundits works overtime to prevent the > > MOQ from getting out of intellect's grip from where it can CHECK > > INTELLECT. Inside intellect it will be assimilated by its S/O and it's > > back to square one. > > > > And square one is the "Quality/MOQ" meta-metaphysics that the > > pundits cling to and, yes, Pirsig has said enough to give them > > ammunition. However this > > > > "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 BE REASONING OF ANY > > KIND.(LC, Note 132 - emphasis added) > > > > ...makes nil and void of the "Quality/MOQ" atrocity by showing that the > > DQ/SQ is the only Q-arrangement possible, besides Pirsig has said > > that Quality is MOQ's DQ. Just ask Anthony. > > > > > > 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
