On 6/26/10 3:32 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. her ways (MarshaV) > 2. Re: her ways (LARAMIE LOEWEN) > 3. Re: her ways (MarshaV) > 4. Re: Left brain, right brain, whole brain. (david buchanan) > 5. The MOQ by the moqists Part 2. ([email protected]) > 6. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (ARLO J BENSINGER JR) > 7. Re: Thought of the day (david buchanan) > 8. Re: DQ: to define or undefine (John Carl) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:25:26 -0400 > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: MoQ <[email protected]> > Subject: [MD] her ways > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > > > THE VOICE OF THE ANCIENT BARD > > Youth of delight! come hither > And see the opening morn, > Image of Truth new-born. > Doubt is fled, and clouds of reason, > Dark disputes and artful teazing. > Folly is an endless maze; > Tangled roots perplex her ways; > How many have fallen there! > They stumble all night over bones of the dead; > And feel--they know not what but care; > And wish to lead others, when they should be led. > > (Blake) > > > ___ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:44:02 +0000 > From: LARAMIE LOEWEN <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] her ways > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Eagle And Earwig, Essays On Books And Writers - > > Colin Wilson; Part 2: Individual Writers - 11 - > > The Work Of Ayn Rand - 210 > > > > My first post at this forum was to Marsha. > > > > How about another post suggesting the Orphic Of Delphi ... > > > > Cheers, > > > > Laramie Loewen > >> From: [email protected] >> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:25:26 -0400 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [MD] her ways >> >> >> >> THE VOICE OF THE ANCIENT BARD >> >> Youth of delight! come hither >> And see the opening morn, >> Image of Truth new-born. >> Doubt is fled, and clouds of reason, >> Dark disputes and artful teazing. >> Folly is an endless maze; >> Tangled roots perplex her ways; >> How many have fallen there! >> They stumble all night over bones of the dead; >> And feel--they know not what but care; >> And wish to lead others, when they should be led. >> >> (Blake) >> >> >> ___ >> >> >> 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 > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:35:01 -0400 > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] her ways > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Laramie, > > > Orphic Of Delphi? With the oil filling of the gulf? Need > any one be told what is not good? > > > > Marsha > > > > > On Jun 26, 2010, at 3:44 PM, LARAMIE LOEWEN wrote: > >> >> Eagle And Earwig, Essays On Books And Writers - >> >> Colin Wilson; Part 2: Individual Writers - 11 - >> >> The Work Of Ayn Rand - 210 >> >> >> >> My first post at this forum was to Marsha. >> >> >> >> How about another post suggesting the Orphic Of Delphi ... >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> >> >> Laramie Loewen >> >>> From: [email protected] >>> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:25:26 -0400 >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [MD] her ways >>> >>> >>> >>> THE VOICE OF THE ANCIENT BARD >>> >>> Youth of delight! come hither >>> And see the opening morn, >>> Image of Truth new-born. >>> Doubt is fled, and clouds of reason, >>> Dark disputes and artful teazing. >>> Folly is an endless maze; >>> Tangled roots perplex her ways; >>> How many have fallen there! >>> They stumble all night over bones of the dead; >>> And feel--they know not what but care; >>> And wish to lead others, when they should be led. >>> >>> (Blake) >>> >>> >>> ___ >>> >>> >>> 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 > > > > ___ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:47:34 -0600 > From: david buchanan <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Left brain, right brain, whole brain. > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Krimel asked: > My question was what is the difference between "circularity" and "paradox" on > the one hand and "platipi" on the other? Also could you clarify the meaning of > this term you have taken to using recently: non-conceptual. > > dmb says: > A platypus is an analogy for anything that doesn't fit into existing > categories. Circularity, in a context like this, is a type of invalid > reasoning wherein the conclusion is used as a premise to reach the conclusion. > A paradox is a statement that seems contradictory but turns out to be valid > upon further inspection. The fact that light is a wave and a particle, for > example. In the same way, defining something as undefinable only sounds like a > logical contradiction. > > Non-conceputal is just another term for pre-intellectual, that idea we find in > ZAMM, Lila and James's radical empiricism where it is called pure experience > and the immediate flux of life. Northrop calls it an undifferentiated > aesthetic continuum. Dewey calls it "Had" experience, as opposed to "known", > by which he means conceptually known. That's all non-conceptual means. It just > means "not conceptual". Emotions, feelings, moods, intuitions, sensations, or > anything in the affective domain would count as non-conceptual. Some of it is > unconscious, not just un-conceptual. ;-) > > > > Krimel asked: > If these "two competing ways of thinking and being" cannot be explained in > terms of the brain, why is he talking about the left hemisphere. > > > dmb says: > Because it's part of the story, part of the explanation. Reductionism is when > you take it as THEE explanation all by itself. Again, to explain cultural and > philosophical differences in terms of neurological processes or structures is > to REDUCE culture and philosophy to physiology. (There's no such thing as > Nirvana, it's just parallel processing.) And it is simply an error to treat > philosophy and culture as if it were just a product of biology. Cultures and > philosophies are not caused by brains or equal to brains or determined by > brains. Brains are a necessary but insufficient condition of cultures and > philosophies, which are evolved structures too, but they're patterns of a > qualitatively different kind with processes of their own. Yes, the brain is > more than just relevant to the story but the cultural and historical part is > every bit as important and the latter is actually the object of inquiry. > Understanding how the brain works is supposed to help us understand the > meaning o > f cultural flowerings, such as the Axial age and the Renaissance, and the > meaning of philosophical ideas, such as the distinction between static and > dynamic quality. > > Krimel said: > As I said, the literature on this subject is rich indeed and from what I can > tell of McGilchrist's recent book may be a worthy addition to that literature. > But wouldn't it be easier and more productive to focus on a book like Jonah > Lehrer's "How We Decide" which you have cited and recommended to us, rather > than a book you know only from a radio interview and we know nothing at all > about? Or perhaps you could link us the interview. I have no wish to discuss > your impressions of someone you haven't read. > > > dmb says: > I haven't read either of those books yet. But I know enough to see that they > will be included in my bibliography because they'll support my thesis quite > nicely and neatly. That's just how you have to do it when you're pulling > sources together, which is what I've been doing. You investigate the things > that seem promising, read a few sections, scan the index, read a review or two > and I've found there is often a short version of the central ideas available > because they had been previously published as a Journal article by the same > author. That's super handy. Then you know for sure what you're getting. > > Secondly, I think everyone knows that brain science wasn't invented yesterday. > Everybody knows the field has a history. But scanning technology has really > opened things up in the past few years. That's why it's so exciting right now. > Psychology and the philosophy of mind are equally exciting as a result. And > guess whose views are being vindicated by this new work? He he, ha ha, ho ho. > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with > Hotmail. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326 > ::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:52:23 +0200 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: [MD] The MOQ by the moqists Part 2. > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > Arlo, Craig, Mary, All. > > [Mary] >> The Pirsig Levels are SOM representations of the indefinable insight >> Pirsig had early on. > > Wish Mary would limit herself. Pirsig levels? The levels are static > levels of quality. Full stop! > > [Craig] >> However, it does not follow that SOL = SOM nor that SOL cannot be part of >> the MoQ. (Nor that insights are either definable or indefinable.) > > Right you are Craig, The SOM minus the "M" rank can well be part of > MOQ's static range, in fact it is the highest and best part. Come > forward more forcefully Craig > > [Arlo] >> Not only this, SOM is the specific metaphysical position that posits that >> "subjects and objects" is the fundamental metaphysical division of >> "reality". How on earth can the "Pirsig levels" be SOM? That's inane. > > How dense can one be? The subject/object distinction - the ability to > tell whats objective from what's subjective is MODERNITY itself and > must be held high in the role of MOQ's highest static level. As SOM it > leaves us with an amoral reality, inside MOQ's moral universe it is the > highest static moral. > >> So here's some remediation. SOM = a particular metaphysical view that >> holds the subject/object division to be the primary metaphysical >> division of "reality". MOQ = a particular metaphysical view that holds >> that the dynamic/static division is the primary metaphysical division >> of "reality". These are both "intellectual patterns", and both inform a >> particular response to experience. > > The intellectual level is a MOQ level and cannot contain the MOQ > without creating a logical impasse. When it comes to (try to) disprove > the SOL no argument too weird ... but in vain. > >> SOL, "subject-object logic", is one of those terms that, I gather, means >> "logic derived from operating within an SOM orientation". There is no >> "necessary SOL" needed to convey the MOQ, that's about as idiotic and >> incoherent a statement as one can put forth. > > ... and no language too base, but the SOL will not go away because it > IS the MOQ > >> The MOQ as written by Pirsig does not make use of SOL, because the author >> is not operating from within an SOM view. > > Course he isn't. The only correct thing you have said. He makes the > SOM a quality subset. > >> Of course, you could say that "language", with its "subject" and "objects" >> makes all discourse "SOL", but that's ridiculous. It would be just as true >> that "language" with its "verbs" and "time" makes all discourse ATL >> (active-temporal logic). > > No, Arlo, the language argument is your Ad Hoc invention so you could > ridicule something. > >> There is really only one thing the fuels the "SOL", and that is a loathing >> of "intellect". The view that this is some sort of ipso facto cancerous >> lesion atop an otherwise moral and harmonic existence. And that those >> horrid, evil interlictials with their black teeth and dirty fingernails >> are responsible for all the worlds ills. > > Now there is something. Not loathing Q-intellect but the SOM it had > developed into while it was "leading edge", but once robbed of its > metaphysical rank all is well. > >> Ah, if only we could get rid of that damned intellect, all would be >> glorious! So instead of following Pirsig's brilliant insight to remedy a >> blindspot in the dominant intellectual paradigm, we simply rage against >> the intellectual level as faulty and vile. > > Rid of! No way, but once SOM has been stripped down to size, i.e. > become the static intellectual level .... again ... all is well. About the > MOQ as an intellectual level, reforming intellect from within is > untenable the reformation must be imposed on it. As if inorgany, > biology and society can be "improved". Come to your senses Junior. > > Bodvar > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:23:58 -0400 > From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > [Horse] > Lovely - I missed that little gem. Cheers Krim. Is this an updated variation > on > the theme that the first person to mention the Nazi's has lost the argument. > Seems like it. > > [Arlo] > Yeah, but what did you expect? Bo's understand of Pirsig has always been > lacking in this regard, the SOL is about as unimportant and unimpressive a > revision of Pirsig's works as I've seen here. The few who cling to it do so > out > of an array of needing to demonize that awful "interlict". And I do not expect > that to change. So while Bo preaches to the three or four people who still > take > his revisions seriously, there is little to do or say but continue to insist > that he take his argument to the only valid ground it has- as an alternative > to > Pirsig's MOQ. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:26:28 -0600 > From: david buchanan <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [MD] Thought of the day > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" > > > Platt quoted from RefDesk.com > > "My experience is what I agree to attend to." -- William James. In other > words, value is pre-experience. Now there's an idea worth further > consideration -- the MOQ enhanced! > > > dmb says: > > Enhanced? I think the MOQ already says what James is saying here. In the next > sentence James says, "Only those items which I notice shape my mind - without > selective interest, experience is utter chaos." (Principles of Psychology, > 1890). In other words, a thing that is not valued is not experienced. It > remains unconscious, unnoticed. And here "experience" means what we notice, > what we're consciously aware of and pay attention to. This is drawn from a > much larger, richer, less conscious field of awareness. > > It's like the difference between a flood light and a spot light. > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with > Hotmail. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID2832 > 6::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5 > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:24:30 -0700 > From: John Carl <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] DQ: to define or undefine > Message-ID: > <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:08 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> >> >> dmb says > > > >> Static means stable, not forever frozen. >> >> > In a sense, its highly dynamic: the seasons shift, the rivers to rise > with the rains, the snow melts from the mountains, the leaves fall and > then bud again. Year in, year out the seasons repeat this predictable > dance. Is this dynamic or static? I'd call that static. Now when an > asteroid hits the earth, and changes all the patterns, that's what I'd call > dynamic. Dynamic doesn't mean simply change, as dave points out, everything > everywhere is a constant state of flux and change. But dynamic means > something different than the expected. It's an intellectual definition of > that which falls outside the boundaries of intellectual foresight and > control. > > It all depends upon which frame of reference you choose. Like Quantum > Mechanics, Krimel. You believe in QM, don't you? What are you if you don't > believe in QM, some kind of Nazi? > > > >> >> >> dmb says: >> >> That's about right but it's also true that the romantic style is a style of >> thought. He characterizes Plato and Aristotle as romantic and classic, for >> example. The romantic style in not any less intellectual and so we're >> talking about static patterns either way. That's why DQ and romantic quality >> are not the same. >> > > > John: > > I equate the romantic with the mythos and the classic with the logos. > The mythos ties in to our emotional romantic sensibility and the logos with > our analytic and intellectual side of experience. I certainly agree that DQ > and romantic quality are not the same. The normal definition of intellect, > I see as more on that classic/logos side of human experience, which is why I > don't like the label of "intellect" for the 4th level of being. > > But other than that semantic quibble of the connotations of intellect, I > agree with dave. > > Which is a relief; I don't have to spend excessive time making my own point > on this to Krimel. I can just point here and go, "yeah." > > > dmb: > > > Thanks. This conversation seems for real. I sincerely appreciate that. >> >> > > Everybody appreciates real conversation. Its a quality experience. > > John > > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Moq_Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > > > End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 55, Issue 158 > ******************************************** 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
