Hello everyone
>From: skutvik@online.no
>Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>To: moq_discuss@moq.org
>Subject: MD Magnus
>Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2002 10:44:14 +0200
>
>
> > >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.
>Bo:
>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!
Hi Bo and Magnus
I don't see anywhere in Lila that RMP refutes Descartes other than to add a
line to
his famous one before calling it correct. I'm not sure I am seeing the
problem here
other than the common misunderstanding RMP tries to correct in his
annotations pertaining
to what he means by the social level. It hurts a bit to hear RMP's statement
called
dubious, boring, and un-called for. I find it fascinating. Hopefully Marco
will find
some value in it as well. Have you received your copy yet Marco?
>
>(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?
Dan:
The MOQ allows us a more expanded point of view, yes, and it doesn't
contradict
science, but it doesn't concede there is a reality without people. That is
what science
assumes and is RMP's point when he says the MOQ is truly empirical where
science is not.
As for re-introducing SOM, doesn't your S-O logic as
the Quality intellect level do that too, Bo?
I really don't see how the MOQ can get away from SOM without becoming a
school of thought
that requires years to master. I think RMP's point is that it doesn't matter
as long
as we remember SOM is a sort of short-hand for describing reality.
Dan
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
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