Kevin and Horse. On 27 Feb. Kevin quoted Horse's:
> > So what you're saying basically boils down to: > > 1) Intellectual patterns of value are Dualistic > > 2) The Metaphysics of Quality is an Intellectual pattern of value so > > 3) The Metaphysics of Quality is Dualistic > > Is this about right? I think Horse's first point is right - both as a summary of Kevin's and MOQ-wise. The second point is correct in the sense that the Quality Idea started a SOM idea, but because it couldn't be contained by SOM it no longer is an intellectual pattern, rather SOM as intellect became a Quality pattern. Regarding the 3rd. point see below. Kevin went on: > What is or is not dualistic is the approach to reality. A dualistic > approach sees reality as an object "out there" and separate from > oneself. >From SOM seen existence is so divided and will remain so till kingdom comes. From these premises the subject/object see-saw has since alternated "All is just mind", "Mind is just ..." > The Metaphysics of Quality is like this. The MOQ is N-O-T like this. Ought not be at least, but to my grief Pirsig himself - as a second thought almost - realized that the MOQ was "man-made" and nullified his own great achievement. This is too big an issue to sort out here, so enough for now. > Platt recently mentioned Roger Penrose's The Emperor's New Mind. > In it Penrose wrote about brains in vats. I can't remember the > conclusion Penrose arrived at but I do remember the questions. > Could an appropriately connected brain distinguish its brain-in-vat > reality from the reality it perceived from its electro-chemical > connections? Could a brain in a vat know it was a brain in a vat? This is the SOM-induced "mind-from-biological-brain" chimera, but a disconnected mind (consciousness) - disembodied or not - will never "materialize" because there is neither mind nor matter in the MOQ. The subject/object aggregate exists only at the intellectual level ... IS the intellectual level. > For me, these questions get to the root of what I believe about > reality. I believe interaction is everything. Interaction between what? > We can approach reality dualistically like a brain in a vat and > realize limited interaction and separateness from reality. Or we can > approach reality non-dualistically and realize abundant interaction > and oneness with reality. My experience is we all do both and that > most people, including myself, spend most of thier lives like brains > in vats. This looks more promising, at least Kevin sees it possible to transcend SOM but then he proceeds down "oneness" dead end, as if the sole alternative to S/O-dualism is monism. Why not the better dualism where the "Brain in Vat" view becomes a VALUABLE yet limited outlook? Bo 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/
