Hi Platt,
Thanks for the encouragement.
I enjoy your posts also.
I rather like your use of the prefix meta in these posts, as i have often
felt DQ is meta-everything!
If physics is everything in nature, then metaphysics explores the origins of
nature; which is exactly what Aristotle's posthumous compiler could see in
the writings.
Just now i am fishing for some ideas on meta-physics (as in science); that is
to say Quality physics.
It's doing my head in, and when that happens i just drop it until i feel
another bite on the line.
Strangely, my thoughts keep drifting back to the question of whether quality
can be taught; and the proof that it can be taught is a link between physics
and Quality.
Still thinking about this one!
It is so good to know there are those like you out there with an
understanding soul.
All the best,
Squonk. :-)
In a message dated 8/30/01 6:44:25 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
writes:
<< Subj: Re: MD Meta-Level
Date: 8/30/01 6:44:25 PM GMT Daylight Time
From: pholden@sc.rr.com (Platt Holden)
Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Hi Squonk:
Sorry to be so tardy in responding to your insightful post re: the
Sophists. Yes, your are absolutely right that there is really nothing new
here and that postmodernists who have infected academe represent a
resurgence of sophistry. My sole purpose in bringing the article to the
group's attention was to suggest that the MOQ is possibly a meta-
intellect look at SOM, cast as it must be in intellectual-level language
(that evolved from society as Bo says). The difference between the
MOQ and other meta-intellect perspectives is the MOQ emphasis on
the value of the various perspective, something which SOM-based
meta-perspectives (such as the example cited) are incapable of
accessing directly. In other words,"truth" as expressed by SOM is
transcended by the "value" of the truth expressed. Or, to put it yet
another way, in the MOQ "ought" rises above (but includes) "is," and
Beauty and Truth conflate under the rubric of the Good.
Always enjoy your posts and find your contributions most valuable. .
Platt
> I should just like to suggest that there is nothing new here?
> The split below is more concisely put this way:
>
> Philosophers (Science) / Sophists.
>
> The Sophists are relativists with respect to Quality, and the Philosophers
> are relativists with respect to truth.
> Pirsig does say this i believe?
>
> Plato and Aristotle are truth philosophers, (although they both had a good
> idea what quality was all about at the end of the day)?
> Nietzche and Marx are quality sophists.
>
> On a deep level, all the above explored quality to some extent.
>
> The post modernist lark is a resurgence of the sophists as i see it.
> And as philosophy has given birth to science, i guess this means the
> prevailing split in intellectual circles is largely a Science/Sophist
split;
> between people who fracture and people who unify.
>
> The best description so far in my view is the MOQ.
> As Neil Young might say, 'He said it's old, but it's good; like any other
> primitive would.'
>
> All the best,
> Squonk. :-)
>
>
>
> In a message dated 8/17/01 8:49:07 PM GMT Daylight Time, pholden@sc.rr.com
> writes:
>
> << Subj: Re: MD Meta-Level
> Date: 8/17/01 8:49:07 PM GMT Daylight Time
> From: pholden@sc.rr.com (Platt Holden)
> Sender: owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk
> Reply-to: moq_discuss@moq.org
> To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>
> Hi Bo and All:
>
> There is an interesting paper entitled "Meta-Paradigms in
> Philosophical Thought" at
>
> http://examinedlifejournal.com/archives/vol1ed4/metaparadigms.html.
>
> The author identifies two broad but distinct modes of thought--the
> rationalists/empiricists and the humanists/relativists.
>
> Rationalists (scientific paradigm) are primarily concerned with the
> question, "What is this?" They seek to discover the laws of nature,
> human nature and society.
>
> Humanists (postmodern paradigm) are primarily concerned with the
> question, "How should we live?" For them, values are the central
> problem and purpose of human existence.
>
> Agreeing with Pirsig, the author points out that the scientific (SOM)
> mode of thought is impersonal, value free, apolitical, causal and
> empirical. By contrast (and not mentioned by Pirsig), humanistic
> thought is described as personal, valuing, political, multi-causal and
> imaginative.
>
> The author further subdivides these two major thought paradigms.
> Under the rationalists he subsets Plato (Rationalist-Idealist) and
> Aristotle (Rationalist-Realist) while below the humanists he puts
> Neitzche (Relativist-Realist) and Marx (Relativist-Idealist).
>
> The humanist outlook is exemplified by postmodern intellectuals who
> believe that things should be seen not from "outside" as in the
> scientific paradigm (SOM) but from the "inside" of a cultural context.
> They believe it serves mankind better to be "contextualizers," "story-
> tellers," "faith-healers" and "conservationists."
>
> In further defining the postmodern worldview, the author writes:
>
> "In the 20th century, philosophy has, since the later Wittgenstein,
> increasingly taken the "linguistic turn" in an anti-Cartesian fashion
that
> attempts to show as hopeless or irrelevant the separation of subject
> and object, fact and value, is and ought. The postmodern thinker seeks
> answers in conversation and discourse. Accordingly, truth and the
> meaning of life is now better to be found in words and cultural
> landscapes, not in a self-contained rational, thinking subject."
>
> Now the reason I bring this up is twofold. First, I am and have always
> been intrigued by Bo's view of Q-Intellect although I admit to having
> less than a full grip on the concept. Obviously, the author of the paper
> described above hasn't a clue about Q-Intellect. But he does have an
> idea about meta-intellect, and I find it somewhat difficult to
distinguish
> between those two concepts. (Maybe "concept" is the wrong word to
> use when referring to Q-Intellect since I suspect that its essence may
> be, like mysticism, inexplicable.)
>
> Second, Pirsig doesn't identify postmodernism as a separate thought
> system on a par with SOM as does the author of the paper noted
> above, making me wonder how he (Pirsig) would treat the
> postmodernist emphasis on values and whether he would find
> postmodernist thought morally bankrupt in spite of the lip service it
> pays to qualities over quantification.
>
> Personally I find postmodernism distasteful, primarily because of its
> leftist, socialist, utopian agenda. And I find nothing in the MOQ too
> support the postmodern paradigm. But I could be wrong.
>
> Platt >>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:28 BST