Greetings,
I am not saying that the Intellectual Level is populated by subjects and objects; it is populated with patterns of value. I am describing the way intellectual static patterns of value FUNCTION. Marsha On Oct 24, 2010, at 7:41 PM, Dan Glover wrote: > Hello everyone > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 6:09 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Dan, >> Thanks. My apologies, I will take a few deep breaths before I respond in >> the future. I will certainly do my best to get current. As something of a >> newcomer, I will ask questions. >> >> My questions to you in the post concerning your dismissal of Marsha, which >> you responded to, were sincere. Perhaps when you have a chance you could >> respond to them. In order for me to understand MOQ I believe an >> understanding of the terms is necessary, some thought that goes into the >> source of concepts such as SOM. Things arise for a reason. In my recent >> response to A from Sweden, I proposed something concerning words. Any >> response to that would be most welcome as well. > > Hi Mark > > As I explained, your questions are meaningless in terms of the MOQ. > Subject/object metaphysics is a collection of intellectual patterns of > value that state reality is composed of a subject observing objects. > Period. There is no room for values. In ZMM, Phaedrus goes to great > lengths to show how Quality doesn't reside in either subject or > object. It precedes them. Quality is left undefined. > > In LILA, Phaedrus decides to define Quality anyway... he compares his > efforts to trying to keep the fat man out of the frig. Dynamic Quality > is undefined while static quality is left in its wake. Dynamic Quality > is what's better... not this, not that, as he puts it in LILA'S CHILD. > Static quality is divided into four levels... Phaedrus says that if we > were to construct an encyclopedia, everything would be contained > within the four levels... every "thing" that is, except Dynamic > Quality, which isn't a thing at all. > > In the MOQ, reality starts with experience. There is no reason why > anything arises. The source and the destination of static quality > patterns of value is Dynamic Quality. We are constantly defining > Quality yet it can never be fully defined. It is inexhaustible. In > ZMM, Phaedrus uses the term "Quality Event" to denote the source of > subjects and objects, but in LILA, he abandons the term. Dynamic > Quality is primary while static quality patterns of value are left in > its wake. > > Still later, Robert Pirsig says that he saw how subjects and objects > could be mapped onto the MOQ... subjects refer to social and > intellectual patterns, while objects refer to inorganic and biological > patterns. In this way, he marries philosophical idealism and > scientific materialism under the umbrella of Quality. He states that > there is no reason to get rid of the terms subject and object as long > as it is remembered they refer to patterns of value, not to > subject/object metaphysics. > > Now, my problem with Marsha (and Bodvar, of course) is her insistence > that the intellectual level of the MOQ is identical to subject/object > metaphysics. If you have followed what I said above, perhaps you can > see the problem. Over ten years ago, Anthony McWatt confronted Bodvar > on how SOM could be the intellectual level of the MOQ when Robert > Pirsig indicates otherwise. Marsha's standard response is like > Bodvar's... Robert Pirsig is wrong about his own metaphysics and their > formulation is the "one, true MOQ." > > Anyway, perhaps you can see how deeply this goes, and why my > attempting an explanation really doesn't begin to touch the surface. > But it is all there to read in the archives. It is a valuable > resource, in my opinion, and not a cop-out as some might lead you to > believe. And yes, ten-plus years of discussions is quite formidable. > But, if a person is serious, it is a place to start catching up. > > Thank you, > > Dan > >> >> Cheers and over and out, >> Mark >> >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hello everyone >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:54 AM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:16 AM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello everyone >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 PM, 118 <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> Hi Dan, >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, the definition, always good to have in a discussion. The angle >>> that >>>>> I >>>>>> have been pursuing is one of boundary. We know what SOM is by >>>>> definition. >>>>>> When is it that something enters into the SOM realm? There seems to >>> be >>>>> a >>>>>> lot of grey area which you are not describing. When are we actually >>>>> using >>>>>> SOM and when are we not? What is the boundary that defines one from >>> the >>>>>> other? Is there philosophy going on in a mystical state where there >>> is >>>>> no >>>>>> separation? If so, how does this happen? How are we able to >>> translate >>>>> such >>>>>> an experience otherwise? The intellect may have many components that >>> are >>>>>> not intellectual, it doesn't just come out of nowhere. A description, >>> in >>>>>> metaphysical terms of its arising would be most useful. It appears >>> that >>>>>> Marsha is attempting to define such boundaries. Could you please >>> define >>>>>> yours, and stop being so silly about it? I would like to see you >>> defend >>>>>> your rationale without resorting to some nonsensical not this not >>> that. >>>>> >>>>> Dan: >>>>> >>>>> Mark, you obviously have A LOT of catching up to do before we can hold >>>>> a reasonable discussion. Subject/object metaphysics holds that there >>>>> are only a subject observing objects. Period. Reading your posts, I >>>>> don't see that you've grasped that. When you ask: When is it that >>>>> something enters the SOM realm... something doesn't enter the SOM >>>>> realm. There isn't "something" out there called SOM. That is the >>>>> fallacy that Robert Pirsig tried to correct with his Metaphysics of >>>>> Quality. >>>>> >>>>> And for the record, I am not being silly. It is your lack of >>>>> understanding that makes it seem so. Next thing you'll be calling me a >>>>> retard, I suppose. Not this, not that has nothing to do with the >>>>> definition of the intellectual level. Honestly, I am not teacher, >>>>> Mark. I have very little patience with people who bounce in on their >>>>> high horse spouting how smart they are. A good scientist would do the >>>>> research... read the archives for starters... read Anthony McWatt's >>>>> work... read LILA and ZMM... and if you claim to have read them, read >>>>> them again. You haven't got the message. >>>>> >>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Mark >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:00 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello everyone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 1:09 PM, david buchanan < >>> [email protected] >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You still don't see why your equation doesn't add up? You still >>> don't >>>>> see >>>>>>> the problem with your reasoning? I thought I'd made it impossible to >>>>> miss, >>>>>>> even for you. And what I did was neither a hissy-fit nor was it >>> merely >>>>>>> insulting. It was a step-by-step explanation and, as usual, you have >>>>>>> responded with a childish evasion. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Go ahead, Marsha explain your reasoning. If philosophy is a >>> particular >>>>>>> kind of intellectual quality and SOM is a particular kind of >>> philosophy, >>>>>>> then how can the whole intellectual level be defined as "a formalized >>>>>>> subject/object level (SOM)"? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How can one part of a subsection define the whole thing? That's >>> like >>>>>>> defining "food" as one of the cherries in one slice of one pie. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what really kills me is the fact that anybody ever asked in the >>>>> first >>>>>>> place. Intellect is what you're using to ask the question. It's just >>> the >>>>>>> ability to skillfully handle concepts, abstractions, generalizations >>> and >>>>> the >>>>>>> like. Intellectual patterns are the products of that skill. What's >>> not >>>>> to >>>>>>> understand? Intellect is what we use here everyday. It's what you use >>> to >>>>>>> read and interpret the books we're here to discuss. It's just >>> thinking. >>>>>>> Marsha's definition is too complicated by about 2000%. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's a criticism of your position, Marsha, not mere insult. Yes, >>> I >>>>>>> characterized your reasoning as "spectacularly bad" and >>> "spectacularly >>>>>>> stupid" but I broke it down into steps, used an analogy and otherwise >>>>>>> explained exactly what the problem is with that reasoning. A child >>> could >>>>>>> have understood that explanation but you've simply ignored the actual >>>>>>> substance of it. As usual, your response fits the same old pattern. >>>>> Insult >>>>>>> and evade, insult and evade. There is simply no reasoning with you, >>> is >>>>>>> there? You are literally unreasonable. Things like logic and evidence >>>>> mean >>>>>>> absolutely nothing to you, do they? I just don't understand how you >>> can >>>>>>> cling to such a conspicuously contradictory construction without >>>>>>> embarrassment. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Level 4 includes patterns like a, b, c, and d. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Therefore: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Level 4 is defined as the patterns that dominated the Western part >>> of >>>>> d >>>>>>> in recent historic times? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> C'mon. Anyone can see how s)pectacularly bad that reasoning is, >>> right? >>>>>>> It's not just me, right? Isn't is conspicuously wrong? The problem >>> with >>>>> it >>>>>>> is very clear, no? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan comments: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes, I don't get it either... this facination of attempting to define >>>>>>> the intellectual level as something it is obviously not, at least not >>>>>>> in the framework of the MOQ. SOM as intellect (and I don't care how >>> it >>>>>>> is clothed, it is still SOM as intellect) is an unreasonable position >>>>>>> that leads to nonsensical conclusions that any serious thinker is >>>>>>> bound to reject. It is frustrating to spend so much time on this, >>>>>>> especially when Marsha claims to be interested in Buddhist philopophy >>>>>>> and how it relates to the MOQ. Why on earth would I even bother >>>>>>> getting drawn into another discussion with her when I already know >>>>>>> what the end result will be? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've tried to engage both her and John in an intelligent discussion >>>>>>> but failed. Maybe it's me. Unlike others here, I am not going to >>>>>>> trumpet how smart I am. Yet I have really tried, only to be met with >>>>>>> silliness, insults, and the same old stale cup of tea that has been >>>>>>> swishing around here for years. Now we've got an umemployed >>>>>>> "scientist" clogging up the airwaves with more foolishness. Oh boy. >>>>>>> Isn't it fun. Please find work soon. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So, no, it is not just you, David. Just so you know, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dan >>>>> >>>> >>>> [Mark] >>>> Hi Dan, >>>> >>>> Is that all you've got? Hmmm...Intellectual indeed. Is that what you >>> call >>>> answers? >>>> >>>> Well, then, my only response is: Go back to your master, you effing >>>> rottweiler! You want it your way, there's a nice big bowl of dog food >>>> waiting for you under the table, snarf it up, it will make you happy. >>> Stop >>>> your pathetic snarling on these airwaves! Don't come back until you have >>>> something productive to bark about! Go now, shoo,shoo. That's a good >>> boy. >>> >>> Hi Mark >>> >>> I have re-read my post to you... it is not insulting in the least, >>> other than to point out your questions are meaningless once a person >>> has come to terms with the MOQ. I have no wish that you'd leave. I >>> welcome new members. I merely suggest you would do well to learn a bit >>> before jumping into discusssions that have been going on for years. >>> >>> Also, there are forum guidelines, one of which is a limit to 4 posts a >>> day per member. Horse has been very generous in overlooking that rule, >>> especially when someone has something of substance to add to the >>> discussion. >>> >>> You don't. >>> >>> If that's insulting to you, then so be it. That is what I mean when I >>> say you are clogging things up. There are others here who'd be more >>> than happy to swap nonsense with you... Platt, Ham, Marsha, Bodvar, >>> etc. But if you are sincere in learning a little something about the >>> MOQ, I'd suggest going into the archives and reading posts from people >>> like dmb, Horse, Andre, Paul Turner, Anthony McWatt, Keith Gillette, >>> Scott Roberts, and a dozen others I could mention. The quality of >>> their writings jumps out. >>> >>> Dan >>> >>> PS I have recently been delving into the Guidebook to ZMM... very >>> insightful. You might want to add that to your reading list. ___ 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
