Hi Bodvar, Hi All,
There are still some points left on my countdowm list - this reply is an
important one - and I have some more in mind to talk about and also some posts
to answer (eg. Richard Ridge great reply on one of my posts). I did know very
well that this countdown stuff was necessary to pull me away from my
fulltime-hobby.
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 about cracks in other peoples posts, ... well? ;-) )
JoVo wrote (answering Bodvar)
[...]
> I guess I can show you my point of view most easiest in one of my 'images' (
> yes, my study-mates just have 'loved' those ;-) ).
[...]
JoVo again:
To imagine what I want to underline you draw for the JoVo-model a big circle,
labeled 'MoQ', and inside a small circle, labeled SOM. Also included in the
MoQ-circle is the observer, and everything inside this big MoQ-circle is
connected via arrows directing in BOTH ways.
What in my opinion is showing the classical SOM-position, would look much
different. One circle above, labeled 'SOM' containing the observer pointing with
an arrow to another circle below which is labeled 'world'. I guess you will
agree with me, that this is qualitatively much different from my model, isn't
it, Bodvar? So no worries on this part.
Your description of the relationship between MoQ and SOM seem to look like this:
Two circles of different size - in which you may choose their diameters just how
strong you value the might of each - labeled 'MoQ' on the right side, and 'SOM'
on the left side pointing at each other with a single arrow for each of it.
Those two arrows are meant to symbolize the rivaling relationship against each
other. Below them there could be the 'world'-circle (?) but how is it connected
to the rivaling intellectual systems? I just don't know where I should put the
'observer'-set? (I see right now in this moment that I haven't understood your
model/consideration quite right, so I stop at this point)
Is it roughly ok, the way I described it, Bo?
Bo to JoVos post:
> > > (Old members are yawning at my eagerness, perhaps :-) )
> >
> > Hi JoVo and MD.
> > This old one did not yawn, rather jump with joy at your taking the
> > pains to dig ....and finding this "magnum opus" by Magnus :-).
> >
> > You went on:
> > > What problem I do have with the levels, [that] those are too rough. I
> > > think, that having only four areas or zones to distinguish
> > > value-beings and also their complement in mind the intellectual
> > > patterns of value, is at least one reason for difficulties to find a
> > > reliable assertion of the named (s.a.).
> >
> > I have problems deciphering the above, particularly this " ......and
> > also their complement in mind the intellectual patterns of value ..."
> > etc? Do the levels IYO have a mind counterpart and is mind =
> > intellect?
JoVo answered:
[...]
> The intellectual level is therefore the level, which
> dominates due to intellectual value, although also 'using' the lower levels.
> And intellectual value is gained, generally spoken, out of the understanding of
> as much as possible the 'world' or the 'universe', wherein classical sciences
> (f.e.my studies) are also included.
[...]
> Saying 'complement' means ONE PART of the
> WHOLE and so implies the existence of another part, i.e. the rest of the whole,
> that is the other half, best imagined by the 'Yin and Yang'-symbol. These two
> complements, together representing the whole, are two parts of the same
> 'value-being', the one I have in mind ('mind' - you don't like especially this
> word, do you? :-)) ) and the other one, which is outside of me. Those two are
> connected to each other in a permanent recursive process; that is necessary,
> because everything changes including myself, the observer.
[...]
> Distinguishing between the 'intellectual pattern of value' and the 'value
> being', so the pattern we have build out of the thing and the thing itself [...]
> derived from discussions about [...]'pattern'.
JoVo again:
I think you would agree when I state, that at least there IS something outside
from which we receive information and what gets canalized and sorted through by
means of our intellectual tools, yes? Pirsigs point now is, IMO, that this
information runs through some processing of our intellectual toolkit, but while
doing so some of this data gets lost. What gets lost is not only dependant on
our sensory organs (expanded by means of technical appliances)but much more
those pieces of data that has no VALUE! No microscope, no microphone, no
computer and no seismographic appliance, etc. is able to help avoiding this
loss. You can only measure what you expect to measure. Didn't Pirsig say in
Lila "...data is only data..." (no quotation!)?
Bo had written:
> >
> > Allow me to take the lectern:
> > Ahem. Either are the levels, the whole MOQ, the SOM - everything
> > "in the mind" - or mind is a by-product of matter. Jo, don't you see
> > that this is the very Subject/Object that the MOQ is supposed to
> > replace? I am a little worried that this simple fact is overlooked. The
> > fact that new-comers publish their discovery that Pirsig has
> > "forgotten" the observer/world (mind/matter) problem is forgivable,
> > but we are supposed to know better.
I hope I made my concept visible with the above at this point. I don't want to
reintroduce the pure SOM-stand but I believe that we cannot simply drop it at
all (SOM). In fact it has to be corrected and it has to be integrated, that is
also my point of view. I cannot help but due to the fact that my studies are
consisting of basically classical logic or better what we would call SOM, it may
well be possible the it's influence is visible in my writings.
Now I hope I have convinced you, that I haven't lost my way to much, have I? :-)
Thanks for taking the time,
Kind regards,
JoVo
countdown:3
"...?? The thing snorted! Maybe it doesn't like Engineer-coal anymore, do you
think?....Bullshit, is it? Perhaps it needs only a slow-down for awhile!"
"Just stop drinking beer and I promise this 'snorting' also stops!! It's said
that the rail-track gets much better behind Engineer-town. ...<reading>... we're
advised to be cautious, when leaving Engineer-town, one could loose the track
behind it?!?"
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 - 16:00:54 BST