Rod, Marco and All
Rod wrote:
> OK SOM ( subject-object metaphysics?) and the MOQ ,are derived from
> the eastern/ western split instigated by plato... so far so good!
Derived from? I would say the ORIGIN OF the said split.
> But if this is so, then the origins of the MOQ are older than the
> origins of SOM... correct!! So the SOM evolved from a need to break
> away from the eastern mystical view of the world.
SOM is so much of a break that I have come to see it as the
intellectual level itself. Thus the break is away from the social
reality that had been the rule up to that time.
About the Quality origins. This catches a very interesting point with
Pirsig. His thesis is that Aretè/RT is the oldest idea there is. I am
unsure how Pirsig sees this development relating to the level
system, but IMO this is solely about the Dynamic/Static
relationship. I would have given much to hear his opinion here
though.
I read your human migration part with deep interest, but feel that it -
in a MOQ context - isn't decisive. What is sure is that up to 5/6
thousand years before our time (plus/minus) social reality was the
only reality.
.................................
MARCO wrote:
> Here is a point. One God is like to say one truth (I think we have
> already covered this in the past, Bo?) While many competing Gods are
> many competing truths. At the times of Homer, Greek culture was still
> *very* Indo-European. The battles between the Gods of the Homeric tale
> is an Indo-European saga. Then what happened? IMO the Greeks have been
> influenced by the Semitic populations (let's not forget that Greek
> alphabet is not Indo-European). In that culture, the idea of a single
> truth was something new and to a certain extent dynamic. At that
> point, the step to objectivity was not difficult.
> SOM, in my opinion, could be originated as a fusion between
> Indo-European and Semitic traditions. An absolute truth, but not
> revealed as "Verb" of God, rather an "Idea" (imagine) disclosed by
> reason. Actually, Plato prepared the ground for the "Semitic invasion"
> of Europe! Early Christian thinkers were all Neo-Platonic, and then
> neo-Aristotelian. A similar importance Plato's and Aristotle's thought
> gained among the Arabs, while the earlier Greek thinkers up to the
> Sophists have never been very popular.
Hi Marco
First, as with Rod, I thank you for the piece about the human
history. Very interesting. About the Greek/Middle East connection.
Yes, I think this was exactly what Jonathan and I agreed about.
> And what about the MOQ? I don't think the MOQ is completely derived
> from an Indo-European, Orphic tradition, and that is completely
> against the SOM. Pirsig never dismisses the great advancements the
> SOMish thought has produced. The MOQ, as well as modern science and
> technology could not exist without the SOM. He is just trying to
> restore some good points from the Indo-European tradition: the
> multiplicity of truth, the ungraspable "Conceptually Unknown".... few
> points that can correct the SO thinking.
Well, the MOQ is totally and utterly against the S/O Metaphysics
(that the subject-object divide is ultimate, it's own Dynamic/Static
has taken over the metaphysical role) but it has nothing against the
s/o distinction. This point is important.
(me from before)
> > Look: LILA points to an alliance between Intellect and Biology (the
> > egg-heads and the criminals) to fight Society. I think it's a rule
> > that the upper level seeks support from the one below its parent
> > level and that this is what you demonstrate by returning so strongly
> > to the social level. The ally of something that wants to undermine
> > Intellect is Society.
Marco:
> 1st) I don't think the MOQ (or QM if you want) should undermine
> intellect. That's because the MOQ is part of intellect, as David
> clearly explains, and because the intellectual level is not still well
> latched. Pirsig says that after the 60's we are back to the last
> static latch, the social values of the Victorians.
A subtle point this: No, the QM should not undermine Intellect and
Intellect should not undermine Society, but ANY level's foremost
purpose is to control its parent level and it seems that in this
struggle it will seek support from the one below. My pointing to the
fact that Pirsig seems to side with Society and DMB so strongly
returns to the Social Reality, is an indication that the Q-idea is
something that don't agree with its intellectual parent.
The MOQ IS an intellectual pattern, according to Pirsig all value
rises have been a pattern of the - at any time - upper level. I have
chosen to regard the MOQ a rebel to the intellectual cause
because it is the only way to "fix" q-intellect. I have still to see a
credible definition of it (except mine) except pointing to single
"patterns". As if pointing to Italy or Norway to define social valuel.
Back to the "alliance" tendency and just a speculation. Don't we
see a similar joining of forces between Society and 'Inorgany' to
quell Biology? The primary means of discipline is capital
punishment. OK society should not kill, and intellect has created
democratic societies to cure societies from it, but the trend is
obvious.
> 2 nd) In any case, as well as it has been a mistake the alliance with
> biology to undermine society, I'd consider completely wrong to ally
> with society to undermine intellect
Naturally I agree wholeheartedly, I just find it weird how powerful
MOQ's explanatory power is and want to point to these proofs.
(me from before):
> > You are right in so doing, but we need to look at the QM as
> > something beyond intellect to free Pirsig from the neo-fascist
> > accusations that followed LILA. Seen as a pattern that struggles
> > with SOM for control of the intellectual level makes him one - even
> > seen from his own system - that the LILA reviewers didn't have an
> > inkling is another matter. More about this masterpiece later.
Marco:
> Sorry, but it is exactly an alliance with society against intellect
> that could trigger an accusation of Fascism. This is evident.
My point is that what we understand as an Quality-Society axis, to
LILA's critiques looks like a BAD idea (fascism). They did not read
deep enough to discover the MOQ and how the static level system
works. Armed with this knowledge the danger is gone, but we must
notice this tendency to counter it.
> At the
> contrary, it seems to me that fighting the SO thinking can trigger
> (wrong) accusations of new-age postmodernism.
Yes, many believe (from a cursory reading of ZMM perhaps) that
the MOQ is some new-age thing, but those are quickly
disappointed - we see some "unsubscribe" messages :-)
Thanks
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 - 16:01:56 BST