> [ron] > It sounds to me that you(Bo) are developing a sort of MOQ psychology, I > sense that a metaphysic which Is based in an undefineable concept is > basing it on a concept which is then out side of it since It defies > its own description. [Bo]
But what metaphysics/theory does NOT start with an axiom which means ""accepted as true without proof"? The proof is in the pudding. [Ron] I realize you can not Ascertain the "trueness" Of MOQ by sheer acceptance of anyone elses word save through ones own inquiry*. I am simply offering suggestions as to why some may question the motive of using the tool of scientific hierarchy To ascertain "trueness" even with MOQ's guiding hand. The quality of the finest crafted tool is meaningless to one who does not value it and A weapon for those who value it for the wrong reasons. Some believe accuracy of self must be achieved before the tool Can be used properly. Pirsig desribed it as "care", does care mean emotional accuracy? If so Accurate to what? Ones own perception of "trueness"? Is this the Mysticism you speak of? > Thus when Marsha refered to the taoist metaphor that by focusing Too > much in anything static you thereby are "mistaking the finger pointing > to the moon for the moon Itself." in other words you must understand > what the static patterns are pointing to which is dynamic. [Bo] I feel that many come to the MOQ with their half-baked "mysticism" and believe that it is the harbor for such. The static levels as static for the reason of NOT being dynamic, not "metaphors" for something dynamic. [Ron] I am just supplying the meaning of that statement. What is language but metaphors for what is real? And what is real is everchanging, change is dynamic is it not? > And can never be defined thus the paradox and why some here do not > understand the complex structure. [Bo] The static levels CAN be defined (wish I could find the proper quote from LILA). SOM created paradoxes, but the MOQ dissolves them. I believe it's the half-baked moqists who have created the impression of the static hierarchy as paradoxical. > Created in it's > undefinable name and liken it to dogma. Because to some the whole damn > thing is Subjective and not for mass consumption. [Bo] *Subjective, what rubbish! Over to the "moon/finger" issue. I don't think it's an original Tao saying, but some morsel Taoist offers the West in the hope that they will understand that the light in the sky only becomes "moon" with language. However, the half- baked moqist mixes in their half-baked mysticism and it looks as if language is "intellect" and as intellect (to them) is subjective and because the MOQ (to them) is an intellectual pattern the MOQ is "subjective" or metamorphic. (couldn't you put in an occasional comma sign to make your texts a bit easier to understand?) [Ron] Any tool is meaningless until a subject gives it meaning. If folks want to concern themselves with Dynamic quality more than static hierachy, that's their business. As you say, MOQ bridges both. Who are you to call one aspect of it "half baked". Is it not your opinion? and your opinion is subjective. If not, we would all be agreeing with you and those that did not would be expelled thus making your Own hierarchy less accurate. If accuracy and "proof" is your aim, then I suggest using mathmatics to prove accuracy. Mathmatics is the most accurate metaphor for objective reality and it too, is ultimately Subjective. You can only be as accurate as the limit of the round. Where one would deem 2 decimal places as accurate another would deem 6 decimal places as accurate, but, that depends On the intent of the subject in relation to the value of the object it applies to. I can give you a full mathmatical explanation for this if you wish. The point being, Bo, is that even the most accurate method of ascertaining ANYTHING is ultimatley subjective. That is why I likened your levels to psycology. In that you evaluate a seemingly random set of subjective circumstances Using a particular objective methodology. In this case, a pragmatic one. But even the most pragmatic objective evaluative method, is subject to interpretation. To make it absolute is to kill what it is that it is supposed to support. Pirsig said that there are many ways to assemble a rotissarie. That There is no one best way. If you like your way of assembeling the rotissarie fine, but demeaning those who choose not To assemble it using a particular method, that you feel is more accurate, is faulty. Ever notice How you are the only "full baked" one here? Do You ask for others input simply to scoff at them?. Perhaps you should start your own web forum so then you may confer with genius of your Own caliber and we may cease to dissapoint your superior intellect. 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/
