Andrea primarily, Angus, Platt and DMB mentioned, Group.
You said:
> > Bo:
> > With all respect Andrea No, and no again! If the MoQ is to replace
> > the SOM and "spiritual" is one of SOM's subjectivities then -
> > naturally - it gets a place inside MoQ's STATIC sequence. The
> > misconception that Dynamic Quality is the spiritual realm of SOM
> > leaves it just a messy SOM.
> That's very true. In fact, I would never argue that the spiritual
> realm of SOM is DQ. What I said is: 1) DQ does not belong to the four
> levels. This was what literally stated in the passage you quoted. Are
> you arguing with that? Let me know how.
Dear Andrea
I seem to see SOM ghosts in broad daylight, but it was this your
sentence that hypnotized me:
> > ... It is (IMO) highly misleading to say that
> > "everything fits in the 4 levels", unless with that you mean
> > "everything in this world around me", which could be considered more
> > or less the same as "every static pattern".
My position is that the SOM is (now) part of the MoQ and as
nothing can be dynamic except dynamism itself even SOM's most
sacred derivation - the spirit/body duality - is to be found in the
static Q-sequence. That's why I reacted when you said ..."it is
misleading to say that everything fits the 4 levels". IMO
EVERYTHING do fit, and this has been behind all the disputes I
have been involved in at this forum. I recall these: The alleged
"quality" that DQ/SQ is one way of dividing; the "terrain" that the
MoQ is supposed to be a map of; the "language" in which the MoQ
is just a word arrangement, and - now - the "spirit" that once was
part of SOM and now re-emerges in the MoQ.
Angus understands my position correctly when says that (my)
MOQ is solipsism, but if a metaphysics is the basic blueprint of
reality then the SOM-MOQ transition is a clean cut, there is
nothing from the old metaphysics left standing ....IN ITS OLD
CAPACITY! (like f.ex. biological value which from society is good or
bad SOCIAL value, not biological value any longer)
This my view is contradicted by those who claim that the mystics
of all times have sought the dynamic side of reality, and .....even
by Pirsig's letter to Jason Nelson (thanks Platt). Maybe also by
LILA that says that the quality idea isn't new, rather the oldest idea
there is. But before I recant a test balloon.
Earlier I have claimed that it is possible to see the MoQ as a 5th
level and S/OM as the 4th. From this it follows that each static
level has had its era as a "metaphysics" (in the total reality sense),
but in turn lost its position to the next development. In this view the
3rd level fits nicely with David B's radical vision of the social level
as a hundred thousand years dominant reality of ancient time, still
around as Jungian archetypes. The 2nd level immense era as "all
there was" - very much still around - is as obvious as the aeon
when the first level ruled the earth ...but still the base of existence.
(Landing of test balloon)
Andrea (ctd)
. 2) "Spirit" could be a good
> metaphor for DQ. Perhaps you were arguing on this latter point. I'm
> not sure what you meant. Note that the "spirit" I was talking about
> has no place in SOM. It is not a subject, nor a property of subjects,
> not an object, nor a property of objects.
I see, but does SOM really recognize anything that doesn't fit any
of those categories - even as anomalies? Didn't it take a Pirsig to
bring these things into a new system? And if it remains
"anomalies" in the MoQ too ...Pirsig calls it "higher than the MoQ"
...what's won?
> It seems that you use the
> term "spiritual" to refer to something related to the "subject" ("one
> of SOM's subjectivities"?). This is absolutely not the same thing I
> was talking about.
OK, I understand that and maybe I am wrong. As Pirsig says:
"those aspects of religion which could be considered "dynamic
right dharmaare at a higher level than intellectual truths, including
the truths of the Metaphysical of Quality itself".
i.e: the true religious experience is an encounter with DQ is his
message, but dammit, even saying so he is still inside the MoQ
system!
> I think what you are talking about might be the "subjective spiritual"
> shall I say, either defined by: - those emotions, ideas, aspirations
> that we connect to something "higher" than the physical world/life; -
> the idea of a personal soul as found in western religions.
I understand this too, and again maybe this is what I have been
messing up.
> While both these things have a role in my overall view of the world,
> this role isn't given by them "being" DQ. Perhaps we could talk about
> it, but none of them is the same thing as the Spirit (capital S) I, or
> the Sufi mystic quoted by Platt, were talking about.
A very good presentation of the alternatives.
> Bo:
> "Metaphorical vs non-metaphorical" is another SOM duality. Treating
> language as something outside of experience ...no!.
> Sorry, Bo, I have no idea why using the "metaphor" concept would be
> equated to treating language as something outside of experience. I
> read your sentence like: "you shouldn't use the metaphor concept,
> because it is a SOM concept."
It's the above mentioned dispute with those who says that the MoQ
is just another theory - a way of arranging words. Hot air.
> First, I doubt all SOM concepts can be eradicated from language.
Entering my test balloon and the "many metaphysics" way of
looking at things. No, naturally, but after Intellect (as SOM)
concepts are the patterns that existence builds further on, like
matter was the pattern that life built on and so on upwards. But this
is a complete different way of looking on language.
> Second, I doubt that the perfect MOQ thinker wouldn't want to use the
> "metaphor" concept when talking to other people. In fact, if you
> eradicate all SOM assumptions from language, you'll get a *new*
> language with no universally agreed upon meaning. *All* the words in
> the vocabulary have a SOM meaning.
Well, as above. If symbols/concepts are SOM's (as Intellect)
patterns they will not carry that value into a new level. I repeat:
Matter isn't inorganic value to Life and Society sees no biological
value in living things. All levels sees only own value downwards and
is blind to any value above.
> Since the MOQ supposedly represents a metaphysical paradigm shift, and
> goes counter popular metaphysical assumptions, my humble opinion is
> that we shouldn't be so picky with words. Your "truth", "metaphorical
> vs non-metaphorical is a SOM duality", was conceived and written from
> a point of view from which that looked like a quality statement. I
> have no doubt about it, and I have no doubt that in some sense this is
> true, maybe very true, maybe very relevant. But the quality of this
> statement is not *objective*. What you didn't do (and you couldn't do
> in such a short note) is lead me to that place in your reasoning where
> this "truth" seems relevant. I just meant that the term "spirit", in
> some of its possible various (SOM) meanings, reasonably matches my
> (MOQ) idea of DQ.
Thanks Andrea, your first message (to Mary) was a bit hastily
judged, this one hopefully constructively responded to. This last
paragraph could easily spawn another tome but this is already too
long.
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 - 16:01:50 BST