Thanks Bodvar for your thoughtful response. I'll try to respond to it more fully later. Let me for now say that Dooyeweerd and Pirsig agree on the levels, and how they relate up to a point. DW has more levels including a religious level which he regards as the center of man.
He therefore claims that theoretical knowledge not only involves the emotional level, but the physical, biological etc., social, all 15 levels he identifies. Also, Pirsig and DW agree on the problem with the idea of substance, and on the problem with dualims, for example. We've clearly seen evidence in this thread, and elsewhere on the list, of how the human heart directs thought. This is the source of the discord, insults, and personalization of the debate\discussion. There's much more to say about the origin of human rights. Pirsig seems to think they arose from the Greeks, and were re-energized in the Renaissance by the revival of Greek thought. This, I believe is the source of his error. And I will try to explain what I mean later. You can look at Greek science and democracy, as well as Greek philosophy and religion from which they arose, and compare them with the science, democracy that arose in modernism, and the philosophical and religious ideas from which they emerged and the difference between these two world views, and the ideas behind them comes more apparent. But I have a suggestion for all as we proceed. Why don't we all strive to address ideas, and not people. I noticed you too were attacked personally after this post. So to everyone on the list, what do you thing? Do you think you can address ideas without attacking people. Is this asking too much of you guys? Does your emotional level rule your intellectual level? Thanks, Jon On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 4:14 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:ca > Hi Jon. Welcome to the discussion. > > 22 Apr.: > > Jon to Andre, > > You see what freedom of thought, association, and tolerance your moq > > leads to! You can't stand, or deal with intellectually a challenge > > from a free thinking individual who has not yet drunk the cool-aid. > > Andre does not represent the MOQ (rather the weak(minded) > interpretation) so don't take him too seriously. > > > Of course, it is blasphemy, I have challenged your god! Perhaps it is > > you that needs to broaden your reading, then you might be able to > > respond on an intellectual, rather than emotional level. > > The emotional level (the social) has its place in the system as has the > rational level (intellect) but the MOQ can't be understood from any of > these. > > > And one more time for the record, we have this freedom of speech and > > tolerance of ALL religious beliefs in the West, precisely because of > > its grounding in the Christian faith. And your moq based > > discrimination, and bigotry, makes my case better than I could in > > ten-thousand words. > > This was an issue that intrigued me greatly before the MOQ revealed > the solution: The quandary was: Is modernity (the individual freedoms > and rights) that characterizes the Western culture a result of > Christendom or because Christendom was brought under control of > modernity? Now the MOQ explanation: As SOM (the intellectual level) > emerged in Greece its influence spread by the Romans to the Jewish > region and a sensitive antenna - Jesus - picked up the new signals of > individual freedom, rights & worth, and as such his teachings were the > first attack on the Semitic type religion (social value's) that Islam > continued after the "diaspora" of the Jews. Thus you are right, > freedoms ARE grounded in Christendom, but this is so because > Christendom was/is part of intellect's struggle to get on top of social > value. As you know did Aristotle become a Church Father and more > SOM was imposed for instance the soul/body dichotomy. Compared to > Islam the difference is conspicuous, IT has no soul to be saved - only > rules to obey - thus it can't be modernized without losing its influence , > so when modernization threatens some "assassinating" group > emerges that terrorizes it back to the past. It happened in Medieval > times when Greek intellectual science and knowledge survived in > Muslim world. There emerged the Assassin Order that killed the > sultans and kalifs who harbored the secular infidels, Even the much > adored Saladin - who beat the crusaders - were on their death list. And > it happened in the twentieth century when the very same "western > values" threatened the Muslim countries. F.ex. Egypt's secular Nasser > was on the death list of the "Brotherhood" (the first Al Qaeda). This > more than anything shows what is at stake: Intellect is the highest > static good, but without fetters - as SOM - it is a bleak prospect. As the > MOQ is realized the picture changes dramatically, but the > "intellectualists" of this site works overtime to prevent that. > > 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
