Hi Again.
On April 3 Struan Hellier wrote:
BO:
"But don't you see how vulnerable the mind/matter interpretation of
MOQ makes it? (For instance: The MOQ an intellectual pattern in
here, compared to the corresponding patterns out there?? I had
almost wanted Struan to home in on it).
Struan and Peter MDs.
(this was written Friday so just a greeting for Roger!)
For Peter.
Yes, it was 'wude' to exclude you from our learned dispute. Your
argument for the ONLY subjectivity case is as valid to-day as it
was in Bishop Berkely's time, but SOMism has evolved from the
primitive
John C, Kenneth V, Jonathan, Struan (mentioned) and MD.
John said:
I have been following this discussion for some time now. And I find
your comments to be right on the mark. Metaphysical speculation tends
to become simplified generalizations of universal proportions. The
global assertions
's ideas
"stimulating" must have sensed SOMETHING, and are willing to
explore new metaphysical ground.
Thanks for reading.
Bo Skutvik
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from m
Roger, Jonathan and all MD.
JONATHAN:
They say that actual "direct" experience
is the MAP we have been talking about, but not necessarily the
TERRAIN. We never experience see the terrain "directly" - it is
always imaged from a distance or surveyed through instruments.
Jonathan and Clarke MD.
Thanks for the initial agreement Jonathan, the below are just small
points.
What is interesting about Copernicus is that he didn't make any claim
to a new philosophy. He looked at Ptolemy's complicated mathematics
and found that he could provide an equivalent but
On 20 Nov 2000, at 12:55, Richard Edgar wrote:
I'm not sure if this is a private discussion and as such I should not
be getting involved, but something Dan wrote concerns me.
Hi Richard
No privacy around here :-) anyone may mingle in any thread, and I
will drop a line on this issue too.
On 21 Nov 2000, at 21:05, Richard Edgar wrote:
Bo - I see what you mean and think we are both saying the same thing,
but am not happy with you saying "the Intellectual level is
inattentive because it is preoccupied with its parent level -
society". As I look at things, the intellectual
On 3 Dec 2000, at 14:27, Danila Oder wrote:
Most of the discussion here recently is about MOQ as a DESCRIPTIVE
system. I would really like to have a discussion about the usefulness
of MOQ for giving PRESCRIPTIVE guidelines, by applying it to real-life
situations. Especially I am interested
On 2 Dec 2000, at 17:59, Marco wrote:
When I become so maniac about something it's because I see VALUE in
Hi Marco and MD.
Maniac isn't the way I know you, rather eager to defend the Quality
the way you see it.
it. You pet idea is worth to be questioned, as IMO it contains a lot
of good
Roger and MoQ Discussers
Re your comment about the perception of the levels or the levels as
perceiving.
TO DAN, MARCO, DANILLA, BO AND RICHARD ON LEVELS PERCEIVING AND
AFFECTING EACH OTHER:
I suggest we come to a consensus that anthropomorphizing the levels
is a convenient, but
Roger and MD
I appreciate your presence and comments highly. Compared to
your exemplary notes the MD has deteriorated badly: Messages written at the spur of the moment with headings and fragments thrown all over the place - and hardly any Pirsig reference or relevance at all. Remember the
Chris Lofting wrote:
I think the emphasis from my perspective is that MOQ and the S/D
emphasis stems from the neurological emphasis on
objects/relationships.
Hi Chris and All Discuss.
Is S/D equal to S/O (subject/object) or is it some other acronym
that has gone me by? You say: "...MOQ and
Hi JoVo
You wrote:
Now I'd wish to express my position more clearly as I think, Bodvar,
that I've lost the thread where I talked about an image to illustrate
a comparism between what I expect you have in your mind about the
relation between MoQ and SOM and what I have in mine. (And me talking
Dear Jason.
Relax, nervous breakdown for the reasons that you state is a sign
of "nobility" if I may say so, and something I would hope many
more would experience if you forgive my fatuous comment. I guess
you are fairly young and looking at the shallow attitudes of most
youngsters today
Hello dear MD
A short visit to deliver a message.
"Mlerner" said:
I'm one of those who think Pirsig had it right in ZMM in that true
quality is the unity of the classic and the romantic. I have bee
interested in knowing whether this idea has been expressed in
paintings or other art.
My
Dear MD.
It's been some time since I last visited the archives and was
surprised to find the agitation about Dan Glover's Lila's Child. I
feel out of my depth about the finer legal points, but whose rights
are violated? I can't really see the difference between messages
printed in a book
Philosophers old and new.
Before unsubscribing (again) I want to express my regret for seeing
that Diana McPartlin has left and that the few Pirsig/MOQ-
interested persons have fallen silent - more or less - and that the
MD is becoming indistinguishable from any other Internet bla-bla
site -
in turn
threatened to suffocate existence and was halted by the Q-
intellectual level whose evolution now is going amok and only
can be brought under control by a new Q-development. A groping
5th level?
Phew, Bard spoke about a tome.
Bo Skutvik
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive
Hi Marco and MD.
Bard's last post I will answer separately soon.
My initial lines:
- but according to Pirsig it's the other way round
and finally my point: The Q-biological level's evolution
which would have filled the earth was arrested by the
Q-social level which in turn threatened
Stephen Devlin, Christopher Galtenberg, Matt the Amazing...etc,
and Marco .
STEPHEN wrote:
The line a groping 5th level caught my interest and i wanted to
know if the moq is aware of research into the brain which has some
parallels with moq on some levels
Thanks for noticing my
Stephen, Squonk MoQ Discuss.
I have discussed the Quality idea at these moq.org sites for ever it
seems, and have heard/seen names dropped (none mentioned
none forgotten) all supposed to say the same as Pirsig or their
ideas to have some bearing on the Quality Metaphysics. Nothing
wrong
Hi Squonk and Discussers.
You said:
Quality relieved me of all that science stuff also.
I came to realise that science is a creative activity; a quality
activity and high quality at that. But the static patterns a high
quality creative activity generates is not the whole of reality is
Hi all MoQ Discussers
Brian Taylor once wrote:
Hello!! la la la
I've been thinking for some time now about where human
emotions fit into the MOQ. At first I put them into the intellectual category,
because
they are definitely not inorganic or biological,
David Lind once
David Buchanan wrote on Sun, 24 Jan 1999
Bodvar, Maggie and the gang:
I was grateful for Bodvar's Peirce contribution and Maggie's material on
the evolution of cognitive functions. I've found a paper on the net that
might suffice as a small payback for my gratitude. I hope you'll all
Diana wrote on Fri, 29 Jan 1999:
Well come on Boo. I'm still casting my vote for basic
quality/morality/reality (formated around a specific question though),
but if you want some help with self-questions how about:
Hi Diana
Sorry I overlooked Magnus prodding. Well, none of your
suggestions
BO SUBSCRIBES TO THE MD TO DELIVER AN ANSWER TO ROGER, BUT WILL
(WHEN WE HAVE SOLVED UNIVERSE'S RIDDLE) RETREAT TO THE LS. HE GREETS
ALL PARTICIPANTS OLD AND NEW IN THE PASSING.
Thanks for your response Roger. My piece came too late to be part of
the LS May discussion, but these our
For John B. and Bill (elg14) and Moq Discussers.
I looked into the MD archives and found that you two had
delivered mail that involved my inputs to the soul/self topic at the
LS. As David B. said I am not a permanent subscriber to this forum,
but will deliver responses to you. However, I am
Curtis, Roger and MD.
I looked into the MD archives the other day and found Curtis
Burisch's and Roger Palmer's exchange from a few days back where
Curtis challenged some tenets of the MOQ. Roger met the objections
and Curtis accepted his explanation ..and everything is well, but
then he
Dear Dave, Thomas, Platt and MD.
First of all. Looking more closely at the archives I couldn't help
seeing the formidable "Reality and observation" serial. Wow! I was
a little shocked by Thomas T. Welborn's characterization of LILA as a
harlot and panderer. Of course ZMM is matchless and I
Walter and MD.
Thanks Walter for your welcoming words, but I am afraid I can't stay
long. It's simply interesting "unto destruction" for my other chores.
Apologies for using your name in the said context.
You asked:
It is probably because of the height of my IQ, but can you please explain
All MD!
Struan wrote:
BO:
"Pirsig could have called his teachings Metaphysics of Subjectivity."
STRUAN:
At last, after all this time, we agree completely.
I deserved that. I have been kicking myself ever after for doing such
a disservice to the MOQ. It was in my reply to Peter and his
ect/object-
related stuff. It will continue to do so until the Quality Metaphysics
is recognized.
Sincerely
Bo Skutvik
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructio
33 matches
Mail list logo
