Hi Bo, and Andy
Sorry about the delay. Been having more fun in the other thread.
On 2010-07-15 10:28, [email protected] wrote:
No, the MOQ claims that only at the intellectual level is there a
distinction between theory and reality. Look Magnus you need a
update on the basics.
P. of ZAMM's "hate object" was rationality, what he called SOM and
his claim was that there was Golden Age when Quality (Good) and
Reality were united in the Aretê Attitude. Then came SOM and
destroyed the idyll by its Subject/Object split (I skip the finer points)
Then LILA and the MOQ and now you see that everything points to the
Aretê as the Social - and SOM as the Intellectual level. My reason for
the this is that the social level IS the very same non-dualist attitude
(why people are drawn to religion) and intellect the very same S/O
dualism in so many forms.
Ah, that, yes, I forgot you're firmly stuck in that human society stack.
I tried to explain that to you once, but I don't remember any progress
so I guess there weren't any. But did you read Andy's and my discussion
about different stacks of levels in the computer thread? We agreed there
are for example one stack in a computer that is built on our physical
inorganic level. But then there's another, virtual, stack built using
the computer's laws of nature. These laws doesn't include gravity or
magnetism, but only digital operations such as and, or, not etc.
When you discuss the MoQ, you always start with the stack starting with
human perception of inorganic stuff, but you totally disregard the stack
starting with our physical universe. The stack where inorganic quality
events happens between physical objects without anyone seeing them, not
where a cave man see an apple fall and concludes that apples fall when
dropped.
Andy, perhaps you can rephrase that. I'm not sure my language is
compatible with Bo's, even though we're both Scandinavians.
Bo, really, try to understand what I say now: The notion of different
stacks are *important*. We will *never* get anywhere if we don't
acknowledge that we are mostly talking from within different stacks of
levels. It's so refreshing for me to read stuff from Andy such as:
"I'm not referring
to anything new, it's just a short word I'm using for any given
instance of the static patterns illustrated here:
http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emm.html#page13
"
There isn't just *one* instance of the levels. We can see them
everywhere. If you can see that you're using *one* of those instances
for your reasoning, not *the* instance, then we will be able to really
communicate for the first time since the last millennium.
Magnus
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
