Hi Bo -- I don't now how you could possibly compare me with Nietzche's paragon of nihilism, but perhaps it is my rejection of the MoQ levels that has earned me this name. By the way, I've always supported your cause, Bo, even though I don't see that positing an SO Level solves anything.
> Support comes from the most surprising directions, > but you're right Ham, there has been, and still is, much > New Age nonsense surrounding the MOQ, perhaps > because Pirsig himself is a bit ambiguous here. For > instance regarding Quantum Mech. He uses it to show > that SOM's matter dissolves at the quantum level and > that MOQ's inorganic level better fits the role as matter. > But is the inorganic level=matter? If so what Q-level > better fits mind's role, both SOM realms are supposed > to be equally untenable, no? > > Of course, inorganic value has nothing to do with matter > and (as has become clear) intellect has nothing to do with > mind; no static level corresponds to anything in SOM > and thus no SOM-induced ideas including "conscious > computers" and "fusion of mind and matter" (if that is > what New Age postulates?) are valid in the MOQ. > > What you complain about seems not based in the MOQ, > on the contrary that the MOQ is the problem, and that > makes it a bit difficult - always is in your case Ham. Okay, I've got some suggestions... If intellect, in the Pirsigian sense, has nothing to do with mind, why not toss it and use my term "awareness"? (You can decide whether rocks and atoms are aware or not.) And let's stop the practice of talking about value as "inorganic" or "organic". Then you can say: Awareness is the Value of the S/O divide. (Divided consciousness and intellection follow the S/O split.) If you can accept this epistemology, regardless of how you choose to parse the levels, you and I can be on the same page ontologically. Of course, I look for metaphysical reasons that go beyond this. For example, instead of explaining existence as a consequence of static and dynamic forces splitting (or whatever), I view it as the negation of an undivided primary source, negation being a constant principle of the source. Recently I've been considering this principle as "reciprocal". That is, if negation differentiates subject from object so that Value can be realized, then would not the realization of Value tend to reverse the affects of negation and annul the division? If so, then the cycle of existence could be said to come full circle by restoring the unity of the source. Tell me what you think of this concept, and how you feel it might fit in with the MoQ -- or with Slutvik's SOLAQI -- (or neither.) Thanks Bo, -- Zarathustra 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
