On 10 Jul 2010 at 14:35, X Acto wrote: > > > On 9 Jul 2010 at 15:39, X Acto wrote: > > > > > Ron prev; > > > > > > > What you seem to have trouble understanding is the concept > > > > of self-refferential systems. Which is not qite the same thing > > > > as what Wilber was forwarding. > > > > > > Platt: > > > Oh, I understand all right -- the box SOM can't escape. > > > > > > Ron: > > > Right, when you take certain Objective assumptions to be true, > > > one can not escape. But if one takes value as being true then > > > those contradictions dissolve. > > > > Platt: > > Not sure what you have in mind, but if you mean that value transcends SOM > > intellect I agree. > > > > Ron: > > This is where the interpretive factor gets kinda sticky. If one takes the > > tack > > > of > > SOM= the intellectual level, then no. Because it can't. It contradicts it's > > own > > > > assertion. > > SOM is the highest static good and the four levels is all there is. If one > does > > take that value transcends the intellectual level then all sorts of twisted > > rationalized arguements arise to support this assertion. It becomes > > indestinguishable > > from religous rationalized arguements. It becomes a destroyer of the > > intellectual level. > > It seeks to kill all intellectual patterns. The highest good mind you per > > SOL. > > The intellect commits suicide looking to transcend to some rationalized > > state > > thats is indefinable. Sounds like a religion. > > [Platt] > > Well then you're going to have to deal intellectually with DQ which is > indefinable. Does acknowledging the existence of that creative force destroy > intellectual patterns? Does Pirsig rely on some religious-type miracle to > round > out his metaphysics? > > What say you? > > > Ron: > SOL seems to answer "yes".
[Platt] You say otherwise? 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
