Platt and Debaters
You wrote in the "four interpretations" of the MoQ:
> No straddling for Bo. He has not only intellectually accepted the MOQ,
> but feels it deep in his bones as "a world unto itself." Bo admits to
> "having had some 'Phaedrus experience' of (his) own" and has "accepted
> the Quality idea" that puts one "in a different universe" where the
> ancient divisions of observer/world, mind/matter, ideas/reality and
> map/terrain simply don't exist and therefore can't be used to argue
> against the MOQ. Once you accept the idea that all is Quality, he
> argues, the only division that makes any sense is Dynamic and static.
> All the other stuff that philosophers have been arguing about for ages
> is irrelevant to the MOQ worldview. Nor is there any point to arguing
> against the MOQ with logic because logic is based on the S/O division
> and assumes there are causes for events (as opposed to Quality
> events). In effect, the Quality idea, by reason of its tentative step
> beyond rationality status, is immune to attack by intellect, much like
> Plato's world of perfect forms outside the cave. Just how one, brought
> up all his life believing that rationality was the one right way to
> think, can jump over into an MOQ mode where rationality is not the
> primary avenue to truth is the BIG question. It takes, I presume, a
> kind of "born again" revelation.
I think you have made a good survey of the different person's MoQ,
your rendering of mine is excellent at least. I winced at the the
"born again" allusion at first, but ....OK :-). A comment however:
Religion (I only know the Christian Lutheran kind intimately) has
developed along with SOM, but those who feel the "call of the wild"
declare intellect(reason) to be nil. In (my) MoQ on the other hand,
intellect isn't disregarded but left behind as next highest static
level. No 5th level is born or has emerged, it's much an embryonic
thing.
> But then again, I wonder. Do we not live our lives primarily on the
> basis of "I know what I like" rather than "I know what intellect tells
> me."? Even if we insist on the hard-nosed scientific approach to
> what's real and what isn't, don't we do so because that's the approach
> we like the best? Our choices of companions, spouses, jobs,
> possessions--all are based primarily on an elemental emotion of
> pleasure which reflects what we value, what we care about. So for me,
> the reality we know--where experience and evaluation occur
> simultaneously--is the evidence for the universe Bo talks about where
> rational explanation is besides the point. "Quality is experience"
> says Pirsig. Thoughts come later. In other words, the starting point
> of reality is aesthetic, like beholding a painting or listening to a
> symphony where what is most important about it is beyond analysis. In
> that respect, I think Bo points us in the right direction.
Agreement ..naturally :-)
> No doubt I have misinterpreted much of what these gentlemen believe. I
> look forward to their corrections, amplifications and further comments
> on these ever fascinating subjects. But misinterpreted or not, I owe
> them much in coming to my own understanding of what this old world is
> all about.
I too look forward to learn how the other cited persons see your
summary Platt, this was a most needed job. Thanks a lot - not
only for looking positively on my approach.
Bo
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 - 16:01:29 BST