Greetings Sweet Andre,
On Apr 22, 2010, at 10:16 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:
> Marsha to Andre:
>
> I do support Bo's point-of-view when if comes to the
> intellectual level being SOM and the MoQ representing an emerging
> Quality Level, but my choice of 'outer' and 'inner' has more to do with
> seeing where the West and East focused their interest. I could just
> have easily written 'phenomenon' and 'mind'.
>
> Andre:
> Marsha, you are sometimes like the eel in a bucket of snot! You want to
> wriggle your way out of positions by appealing to DQ/SQ. But this makes
> your position seem superfluous which it isn't. This is a form of nihilism
> and you (as PoV's)have not emerged into this universal pattern for no reason.
Reality is Quality(DQ(unpatterned experience)/static quality(patterned
experience(inorganic,biological,social&Intellectual))) Does that suit you!!!
> Bodvar is the opposite and this makes it interesting: Bodvar places
> everything into boxes ( SOM, mind, intellect, language, emotions,
> etc). This is, for me, speaking truely from the 'objective' SOM point
> of view and the danger is that you lose sight of the nuances, the
> different emphases on important issues within a philosophical framework.
>
> It appears to me that (for example) Bodvar does not distinguish at all
> between the MOQ's 'subject' and 'object' as (radically!) opposed to
> the SOM idea of S/O. Nuances, differences and shades of opinions
> are dismissed and immediately reduced to SOM!!!
>
> Your 'mind'is just such an example. As though 'mind' is evil (concept)
> in itself. Mind is an intellectual derivative of direct, pure experience.
> And, may I hasten to add a construct by a very primitive sense of value.
Sorry, I was using conventional language to describe the East's focus on
introspect and the West's focus on an external Nature. I could just has
easily, instead of using ('inner' or 'mind') and ('outer' or 'phenomenon' )
used subject and object.
I have no where stated that mind was evil. I do not think mind is evil.
Mind is a static pattern of value, and of course it has value.
> We would be better off without the notion of 'mind' altogether and instead
> use the simple intellectual PoV ... but Bodvar, and you, it seems, appear
> to see and re-create, from tradition, this unfounded (because disproven)
> mind- over- matter thing or this 'objective over subjective thing. I really do
> not comprehend where this is coming from. Certainly not from ZMM or LILA!
> And if the argument is put that Pirsig himself is responsible for this then I
> would simply say: You saw it, I didn't; so where do you get it from!!?? (and
> I do not want a rehash of the ZMM chart. Lila has been revelatory in the
> nuance difference.
I like the k.i.s.s. approach best: Reality is Quality(DQ(unpatterned
experience)/static quality(patterned experience(inorganic,biological,
social&Intellectual)))
If I want to state that I see the East as having used their intellect to
explore mind, and the West as having used their intellect to explore
Nature, I will,,, and I see both as SOM.
>
> If you are really interested in the difference between the East and the
> Western
> interpretation of reality I really would recommend Northrop, as mentioned by
> Pirsig, who considered himself a student of Northrop.
I would recommend to all introspection, and discover for yourself.
Marsha
___
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
