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 insights... but I also would like to separate something that
> is not good to my ears. :-) However we had so many occasions to talk
> about it, that we both know very well our respective positions, and
> probably sooner or later we will end our struggle to follow our
> respective paths.
Wise words.
> I admit I begun the "war", and probably you are
> tired for all these attacks from this annoying daywrecker! Hope you
> recognize that my quarrelsome efforts had the secondary effect to
> keep the attention on SOLAQI.
Ah well, I asked for it. Agreement about keeping the attention....etc.
> Marco (previous message):
> > > In fact, Bo, when you argue that it's impossible to put the MOQ
> > > idea within the logic as it's impossible for a box to contain
> > > itself, you are just using logic! So, if you also are inside the
> > > box, how can you talk about what's outside? This is only
> > > apparently a paradox: the image of the "box" is valid only
> > > (maybe) at the inorganic level.
> Bo ==>
> > This looks much like the dilemma that the teacher colleagues put
> > before Phaedrus: Is your idea logical (objective) or illogical
> > (subjective)? Two equally unattractive "horns"; One where I simply
> > by reasoning admit that everything is subordinate to this
> > logic/illogic metaphysics. The other horn leaves me in company
> > with all nut-cases of this world.
> Marco ==>
> But Phaedrus, after a long time of reflection, answered with two
> books and a complete metaphysics!
Let me say that this challenge of yours is a tough one. One cannot
easily claim that one don't care about reason without resigning from
discussion ...and society. As a starter I will remind you that
everything is covered by the four static levels (except DQ), so logic
must also have gone through static stages.
> However the difference is that I provide a possible way out. IMO
> it's possible to grasp the limits of logic thinking even
> intellectually and rationally. Logic thinking is one of the possible
> intellectual applications; not the only one, or intellect itself. As
> I wrote in my previous post, intellect works with "links to" or
> "description of" universe.
"To grasp the limits of logic thinking even intellectually" .... is
difficult if intellect is logic's last stage - Archimedes' needed a
leverage beyond the earth to move it - but then I know that you
view intellect as a realm of ideas: SOM one idea, the Quality
another. So did I for a long time, but it struck me harder and harder
that the description of the origin of subject/object metaphysics (in
ZMM) and MOQ's intellectual level match so perfectly, and if so ...!
> So I can contain your SOLAQI, while your SOLAQI can contain
> me. No contradiction, if only we agree that "contain" is not the
> right term. Rather, I explain you, while you explain me; offering
> just an intellectual description of our respective interactions. I'm
> just trying to make you abandon the logic you so strongly fight...
OK, I accept this compromise. From before we have the "carbon
agreement" which goes like this: The said atom is an INORGANIC
pattern that became the carrier of ORGANIC value, but before life
carbon's role was not "recognized". Likewise: the Quality idea may
become the intellectual "carbon" for a development beyond
intellect. You are right: It will forever be an intellectual pattern (like
carbon forever is an inorganic patteren), while I may be right if
some distant future proves that it (the Q idea) became the vehicle
for ....something.
But what about the logic issue?????
I think the term falls in with the many that have been forwarded
("Meaning", "memes", "significance"...etc) as candidates for
replacing Value. My standard reply is: "Fine, there's Dynamic
Logic and various static logical-levels and you have a MOL. If you
had said this before Pirsig you would have been the genius, but
why re-invent the gunpowder. Quality (Good) is always the best."
Is this acceptable?
Bo
PS:
My "burying the war axe" is partly due to the exchange between
yourself and Platt:
MARCO:
> > So, what about the fifth level? Maybe it will rise one day, but
> >it's very hard to imagine what can it be. Beauty is a good candidate,
> > but I'd like to imagine that, whatever it will be, art would be its
> > leading edge. For ever and ever.
PLATT:
> Yes, beauty is a good candidate. Much is beyond our current
> understanding which, as Chris Lofting has so patiently pointed
> out, is almost solely based on splitting experience into parts and
> pieces and, like humpty dumpty, putting them back together again. But
> beauty unifies and harmonizes all at once without prior
> disintegration, and gives us a broader understanding of reality than
> intellect, with all its power, can provide. So I think the aesthetic
> level is already here. It's just a question of recognizing it and
> making central to our lives, not treating it as a disposable frill.
BO:
(who can't resist commenting) MOQ says that each level rise from
a pattern of the former that can't be contained, and goes off on a
purpose of its own. I think Marco looks too far into the dynamic
space for a candidate, and that his "art" - as well as Platt's
"beauty" - rather are candidates for new variants of the MOQ: ... of
Art, ... of Aesthetics. In my opinion these are new names for
Dynamic Value. Marco speak of "leading edge forever and ever", or
Platt's "aesthetic level already here". Exactly!
The next STATIC candidate is more humble and looks for
recognition, but we say "you are too small, go away".
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST