Mary to Andre: Hi Andre,
You said: "The MOQ opposes SOM, or rather 'rectifies' SOM ..." Then later you say, "The MOQ is an expansion of the conventional subject-object theoretical structure. Nothing 'beyond'." I understand that you believe this, but the slip at the beginning is telling. You had it right at first - "The MOQ opposes SOM". This is clear, direct and in accord with the theme of both books. There is no need for added qualifications. No need for back-peddling. Andre: Hi Mary,I am not 'back-peddling'. Mary: In many previous posts you objected to the SOM/SOL hypothesis on the grounds that it excluded Eastern thought, which you characterized as being non-SOM/SOL thought. Andre: I objected to the SOM hypothesis on the same grounds as Mr. Pirsig did: because it asserts that values are unreal. I object to the SOL hypothesis on the basis that it (the SOL) makes a claim which is undermined by Eastern philosophical thought. Mary: In light of the MoQ, which says everything has a home in one of the 4 levels except Dynamic Quality, can you explain where Eastern thought (which you say transcends SOM) is to be placed in the MoQ Static Hierarchy? Andre: I have never said that Eastern thought 'transcends' SOM! It seems to me that in light of your (and Bodvar's and Marsha's) assertion that SOL IS the intellectual level you need to make this claim to maintain this assertion. I do not accept this assertion and, therefore it is not a problem and I never claim it. Eastern philosophical thought clearly belongs to the intellectual level. It is a different intellectual pattern of value. The MOQ allows for different intellectual values to co-exist side by side. Mary: Would you deviate from that to say that everything fits within the 4 static levels except Dynamic Quality and Eastern Thought? Andre: This is a strange way of putting it Mary, because it suggests that you place 'Eastern thought' and DQ on a par! This is clearly misleading and a mis-apprehension of the former (and the latter). It also suggests to me that you do not quite understand the MOQ's intellectual level. I do not mean this in a derogatory way. Consider what Mr. Pirsig understands by this level in the context of talking about AI: 'Since the MOQ states that consciousness (i.e intellectual patterns) is the collection and manipulation of symbols...that stand for patterns of experience...A question arises if the term 'consciousness' is expanded to mean 'intuition' or 'mystic awareness'. ( LC Annot. 32). I believe that the MOQ indeed agrees with this assertion and this blends quite logically with Phaedrus' quest in ZMM (and worked out in LILA) about the root expansion of rationality ( which is something Bodvar has always rejected on the basis of his SOL thesis). It encompasses 'experience' i.e the DQ/sq, in a more satisfactory, because explanatory way, than SOM does. I am not going to sway you one way or the other Mary but the above (i.e the MOQ) makes infinite sense to me as such! Mary: If the SOM immune system would stop quibbling we'd have universal agreement, don't you think? Andre: Alas,I do not share your optimism Mary. The 'SOM immune system' cannot change by itself and is too enmeshed with the social level. It has too many vested interests. Quite frankly I think that Phaedrus was correct when he said that it may perhaps only be achieved through the head, heart and hands of individuals. However, on this discuss we may at least move closer to a shared agreement on what the function of the intellectual level is and what it is capable of. Given Mr. Pirsig's interpretation of this level and the MOQ's affinity to Mahayana Buddhism and Zen please remember that 'consciousness' in Buddhism has, at least, eight 'layers'. Good to talk with you Mary. Fire away!! Kind regards Andre 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
