Hi Magnus
Thanks for reminding me of good old days and for showing a good
MOQ sense (the self-appointed judge you know).
The below are are just a few excerpts that did me good:
...even illusions are real (Marco).
> Cool! That statement is exclusive for the MoQ isn't it?
(Marco again)
> >Reality is Quality. Truth
> >is a static intellectual pattern of value. The Truth that says that
> >everything is in my head is a static pattern of value. You can't
> >prove it too. I'd say it is good, but with many limits. The MOQ
> >surpasses both the "all in my head" truth and the "distinct outer
> >reality" truth claiming that they are both high level intellectual
> >patterns.
> Hmm... statements like these sounds like philosophology. Very rational
> indeed but not very well suited to calm down two opponents trying to
> prove what "the world is really like".
Right you are, may I just add (for Marco). Your saying ...the MOQ
surpasses both the all-in-my-head and distinct-outer-reality ...etc. is
correct, but don't you see the obvious in what Magnus points out: It
doesn't obtain much by saying that both are intellectual patterns .... but
it achieves a lot by seeing the (ability of) seeing this divide as the
intellectual level ITSELF.
> >PIRSIG:
> >"Anders is slipping into the materialist assumption that there is a
> >huge world out there that has nothing to do with people. The MOQ says
> >that is a high quality assumption, within limits. One of its limits
> >is that without humans to make it that assumption cannot be made.
> >MAGNUS
> >Doesn't that sound a lot like Descartes, "I think, therefore I am"?
> >It sounds like: We can't say anything about what we can't experience
> >first-hand, so why bother? Boring, if you ask me.
Great. In my post of (22/1) I also pointed to this Pirsig statement as
dubious, not because it is wrong, but because this is the very SOM
thing that the MOQ is supposed to be a relief from. Re-introducing it
into the MOQ is un-called for. Or as you said to Marco above ...
exclusively for the initiated!
(Marco again:)
> >The MOQ doesn't hold that everything is in our
> >head, just says that the world out there can't be separated from
> >people.
> Sounds right at first glance but there's something fishy here as well.
> I mean, the MoQ is an evolutionary theory right? It doesn't contradict
> science in that the universe was created by a Big Bang, then galaxies
> formed with stars and planet systems and so on. In other words, the
> MoQ concedes that there once existed a reality without people. But
> then... I don't know, are you saying that the MoQ didn't exist - that
> Quality didn't run things - before Pirsig came along? I think that
> puts us right back into hiding in the mind. What's the difference
> between that and Descarte?
I have noted the discussion going on between some of the new kids on
the block (Elliot, Lawry...?) about something that reminds me about our
earliest map/terrain debates. I don't recall your opinion on everything
Magnus, but my earliest memories are of you reminding people of the
enormity of a metaphysics, and you were/are correct: Any great
discovery/theory changes reality (the gravity-before-Newton issue) and
a metaphysics as the greatest theory there is crystallize EVERYTHING
in its pattern. Therefore I have come to the conclusion that even the
map/terrain metaphor is "fishy" (read: SOM). The MOQ has released us
from the SOM prison so why get inside it again?
Thanks Magnus and don't mind it dear Marco for being my "scape-goat"
this time!
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 - 16:02:11 BST