Andre,
I think Craig's suggestion won't work because you flat out state: "I really think that Bodvar means something completely different..." You are overlaying your patterns onto whatever Bo tries to explain. Your posts are a mirror of your own confusion. Marsha On Jun 23, 2010, at 6:37 AM, Andre Broersen wrote: > Bodvar to Craig, Ham, All: > > Craig had suggested: > > Pirsig emphasizes >> > static patterns of value. Bo identifies the intellectual level with >> > Subjects& Objects. But what if Subjects& Objects are seen as >> > static patterns of value? Doesn't this bridge the gap between the 2 >> > metaphysics? > > Yes, yes, the SOL is all about it making the S/O a static value, it > bridges gaps and reconciles differences galore. SOM stripped of its > metaphysical rank - made into MOQ's highest static level - is the > panacea that gives MOQ's its phenomenal explanatory power > Thanks Craig, this is most promising and don't let the Great Inquisition > stop you from promulgating this idea. > > Andre: > Craig, within the MOQ, subjects are social and intellectual patterns of > value. Objects are inorganic and organic patterns of value. I really doubt if > Bodvar's use of these two symbols designating these two levels > coincide/comprise (with) his intellectual level. It cannot make sense. > Bodvar keeps on talking about the value of his S/O distinction as being the > objective over the subjective...a 'detached' distinction between the two. How > this is going to rhyme with your suggestion (and Bodvar's encouragement > thereof) well, I will not hold my breath but am interested to hear Bodvar's > further explanation. > > I anticipate a decade-long exposition of the difference between the > intellectual level and intellect, an equally long exposition about > subject/object, subjective/objective, Bodvar's understanding of SOM and what > the MOQ means by SOM, the necessity of a fifth level or not, and last but not > least whether a metaphysics can be equated with Reality, Quality, the Tao, > experience etc. etc. > > You see, the first sentence of Bodvar's second paragraph '...the SOL is all > about it making the S/O a static value IS exactly what the MOQ does. Objects > are static inorganic- and organic patterns of value, subjects are static > social- and intellectual patterns of value fused/blended into an organic, > evolutionary whole. > > I really think that Bodvar means something completely different... I mean, he > rejects three-quarters of the MOQ and calls most of Mr. Pirsig's arguments > and explanations "nonsense'. (see, for yet another instance of this, his post > to me above). > > I am afraid your suggestion won't change a thing. It will only encourage > Bodvar to think that the percolating goes up instead of disappearing > underground...which IS what a percolating machine does you know!(not sure if > Bodvar ever got this). > > > 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
