Hi all What DMB says precisely reveals the disaster of rejecting not only SOM dualism from the MOQ but also the most basic form of realism, the realism most human culture adopts before SOM dual is, gets off the ground. See comments.
'Arlo is quite rightly identified the essential problem with SOM, a pre-existing reality (to which our true concepts must correspond). ' -no, SOM is the disaster of dividing experience into 2 substances, subject and objects, if you stick to MOQ and develop some good ideas about the patterns we experience, it becomes quite obvious that we do not experience everything all of the time, patterns come and go in our experience, if you are going to maintain your motorcycle pretty hard to avoid some realism about it, now SOM realism is very different to MOQ realism, but there is just no need to ruin the MOQs power by making it a non-realism philosophy. 'And yet, as Ron points out, the MOQ's four levels are supposed to represent evolutionary stages of development wherein inorganic matter pre-exists the human capacity for conceptualization by billions of years. This is the basic problem, right? It seems to be a contradiction.' - obviously you should not introduce matter into the MOQ, but yes MOQ does not deny evolution and that organic patterns existed before human beings came along to understand and experience them. 'Time and change are just basic concepts that emerge from Dynamic Quality, not primary realities of their own and yet evolution is nothing but change over time. ' - yes change over time, a time that preexisted us, non-dualistic preexistence, it is a simple idea, I am sure you can get it if you stop mis-associating it with its SOM version. 'So people wonder how to reconcile this or, much worse, they don't see any need for reconciliation. In the latter case, there is no conflict because Pirsig's levels of static patterns are just a new names for the same old pre-existing "things" that SOM says they are.' you really need to stick to MOQ and say preexisting patterns, we have no good ideas about what causes experienced patterns or what causes happen when we are not around, there are no objects in experience so SOM is nonsense, but we do experience patterns, and these come and go, no reason to think patterns cease to exist when we do not experience them, why are you leaping to that assumption, your evidence? I think SQ and DQ are ontological and exist independently of us and can explain non-human levels, why else talk of levels? "Being a MOQer, in this case, is just a superficial change in lingo and not a real change of mind or perspective. In this latter case, where the rejection of SOM is little more than a banishment of the terms "subject" and "object", the Copernican revolution fizzled out, got short-circuited, or otherwise failed to materialize. " -dropping SIM dualism I'd not superficial, do you think MOQ is just non-realism, dualism is the key problem with SOM, does Pirsig go on about pre-existence like you do, I think not. As I understand it, the MOQ's levels don't divide reality into evolutionary stages so much as they divide what's in the encyclopedia. Pirsig says these Arlo is quite rightly identified the essential problem with SOM, a pre-existing reality (to which our true concepts must correspond). And yet, as Ron points out, the MOQ's four levels are supposed to represent evolutionary stages of development wherein inorganic matter pre-exists the human capacity for conceptualization by billions of years. This is the basic problem, right? It seems to be a contradiction. Time and change are just basic concepts that emerge from Dynamic Quality, not primary realities of their own and yet evolution is nothing but change over time. So people wonder how to reconcile this or, much worse, they don't see any need for reconciliation. In the latter case, there is no conflict because Pirsig's levels of static patterns are just a new names for the same old pre-existing "things" that SOM says they are. Being a MOQer, in this case, is just a superficial change in lingo and not a real change of mind or perspective. In this latter case, where the rejection of SOM is little more than a banishment of the terms "subject" and "object", the Copernican revolution fizzled out, got short-circuited, or otherwise failed to materialize. 'As I understand it, the MOQ's levels don't divide reality into evolutionary stages so much as they divide what's in the encyclopedia. Pirsig says these levels include absolutely everything except DQ, which means it includes absolutely everything except reality itself. That is quite a lot to leave OUT of the encyclopedia, eh?' yes your understanding is a disaster, it makes MOQ aligned with creationism, how old does ZAMM say the world is? Introducing DQ and dropping SOM dualism is very radical, dropping realism is a dumb step too far. 'It seems pretty clear to me that the MOQ's evolutionary levels are only intended to organize our concepts and they should not be taken as a description of reality as it is in itself. In the MOQ, that's is DQ and it is not definable. You're not going to find the primary empirical reality in the encyclopedia and the immediate flux of life is not to be found in the dictionary, you know? ' here we go 'flux of life' quite right, there is life and it goes on in the world beyond experience, you idealists should at leat be consistent and referred only to the flux of experience, but you cannot help it you know realism is right and endlessly refer to their existence and life of patterns beyond our finite experience, and clearly we do not experience everything, there is life beyond, there are possibilities beyond what we experience directly, our imaginations allow us to fill in the gaps in a non-SOM way 'The evolutionary hierarchy of the MOQ does not divide the undivided reality. It re-organized and re-cuts and re-imagines the ghosts, the analogies, the knowable, definable, static patterns. ' you stick with ghosts if you want to! I will take the SQ I experience as real, and when this SQ pops out of my experience I won't assume that means it is some sort of ghost, that looks like a bad idea, real SQ does not need me to exist, that is an odd idea of SOM idealism, I think realism is good, in fact one of the reasons many people cannot drop materialism or SOM or physicalism is that they worry that if they drop these things they lose realism, a realist MOQ shows them they can drop these bad ideas without losing the realism everyone really accepts, I mean do you check the ground is still there every time you take a step forward! You need to start agreeing your philosophy to your actions and experiences! 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
