Horse, Roger, Tor and MOQ Foci.
Hi Horse
Long time since now, but it's great to see that you keep your moq
faculty open. You wrote:
[I don't have your or anybody else's message in the memory of this
my laptop which I use when away from home so I just refer to the
first line of the printed version. You will know what you have written]
>> The problem as stated above...etc
That the nature-nurture question is mistaken I fully agree with (just
everything becomes wrong explained from a subject/object
METAPHYSICAL point of view) and that we are influenced by
biology and by society ....plus some more, is equally obvious. Let
me state that clearly.
That most scientists hold the position that biological - and social
pressure interacts is also true, but the phrase "ultimately dominate
" says it all. No theory has to this day been found for how the two
balance. One must be the real thing!"
This is so because it springs from the S/O - or "mind/matter" -
platypus. Across that chasm there is no bridge, but as shown a
billion times, there is no such division: Mind and matter, nurture
and nature are false positions. And as the MOQ rejects this
division wholesalely, what is its explanation for why one person
becomes Jack the Ripper and another Mother Theresa?
>> A problem with more relevance....etc
Hmm. At first I agreed to Free Will/ Determinism being the mother
of all S/O riddles, but have come to the conclusion that it is a
separate problem. It was once a theological bone of contention
when the learned discussed if God had any options as long as he
knew the outcome. That the HUMANS were free to obey his laws
or refrain (everything circled around God in that period) was not
questioned: the hideous punishment methods reflected that.
No, the modern nature/nurture question is not about whether we're
free or not. In its light we are "bound" any way, its only by what set
of chains: genes or upbringing. MOQ's static realm "contains" the
SOM (either by way of Pirsig's original inorg.+ bio.= objective AND
soc.+intell.=subjective or my new-fangled SOLAQI) so the quality
answer is to be found in the static half.
Even if freedom in a MOQ context is a terrible interesting topic I
think we close the lid on that "Pandora Box" and concentrate on
the N/N quandary, something that both Roger and Tor had good
openings on.
**********************
Hi Roger you wrote:
>> Hope you don't mind me (Risky) jumping in.
Not at all, I have sort of missed you.
>> I also agree with Horse that...etc
All right, like I said to Horse I don't for a moment deny that we are
biological and social beings, it's the fact that SOM cannot explain
that fact that is the interesting thing, and made me ask for the
MOQ answer
>> This issue has come up....etc
I too find that a SOM platypus, but not so much of WHAT causes
as HOW causation can take place at all. Besides I think you prove
it to be a an impossibility lower down
>> The MOQ comes to our rescue.......etc
Yes, this is it. The levels. I understand your examples perfectly
well, and I think you have solved another puzzle in one sitting.
David B also mentioned the levels but introduced an "I" who
decided what level to concentrate on, which left us with an X entity.
You simply say that it is the (self of the) different levels who
compete - the top one being the most moral but not always the
winner.
I would like to stay with the chocolade cake (or at least the
nutrition) example. If circumstances allow (not too hungry) Intellect
reasons that there are too many calories and nothing is eaten. If
more hungry the social self let you have a small slice (after all the
other have had their helping of course). If hunger really bites and
survival is at stake intellect is silent and even society may be
overridden, but it is a long descent until you break its last taboo
and - for instance - eat human - flesh (the marooned aircraft crew in
the Andes) . The biological realm is inescapable if you have
descended naturally (it is of course, directly from Intellect, by
suicide) the body keep on living as long as it gets oxygen supplied.
The inorganic is the last and absolutely "safe" resort.
Hope I haven't twisted your argument too much? And have (we)
answered why one person shows greater intellectual or social
resilience/endurance before turning "biological"? Phew! when will
we be able to retire ourselves?
>> PS - has anyone ever read.....etc
No I haven't. My last book was Arthur C. Clarke's "3000 Space
Odyssey" (hope that's the correct title), but will if free will becomes
our next topic.
**********************'
Hi Tor you wrote:
>> I'm still not sure what we're talking about.....etc
I have obviously managed to confuse you (too) but I think you draw
the correct conclusion in the following paragraph
>> Nature/Nurture......what is interesting is even individual
> behaviours can't be found to be caused by nature OR nurture, in
> which case the division looses its value....etc
Yes, that's the point.
>> I understand this as you wondering if......etc
Well, it's a matter of how we define "cause" in a MOQ context. It
will not be the equivalent of SOM's but more of the "B values
precnodition A". To stay in the nutrition vein. An inedible piece of
(swallowed) matter is evaluated as low value by our biological self.
The transformation of one particular molecular composition of
matter into nausea or pain is a "quality event", but as the MOQ
doesn't claim that matter causes the sensation it has no difficulty
here, while SOM have to explain how matter can cause mental
phenomenons.
>> Time is the new thing....etc
Time only matters for the intellectual level I believe.
>> Using the "DQ creates subject and object" .....etc
This is from ZMM and - again - I am a little vary of it introduced into
the MOQ of LILA. Nothing wrong with it, objective to Pirsig is
inorg.& bio. while subjective is soc.& intell. It's just saying that the
levels are the creation of DQ. But you are right in stating that all
levels obey their moral laws - the lower the more rigid.
>> Hope I'm barking up the right tree.
Me too :-)
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
