Hi Bo,
I'll refrain from Wittgenstein references, but your
attitude is a bit dismissive of a philosopher who
might be the greatest of the 20th century (at least
top 10: Russell, Sartre, Heidegger, Habermas,
Wittgenstein, Quine, Dewey, Derrida, Foucault,
Horkheimer (or your favorite Marxist here)).
First, is the first split of the MOQ black and white?
That is, is MOQ = DQ + sq? If not, then what is the
formula. I sensed that your equation might be Quality
= (DQ+(1/sq)) + (sq+(1/DQ)). So that is to say MOQ is
a sort of holon theory, whereby the part has some
whole and the whole has some part. Is it a strict
hierarchy whereby something is in either one branch of
the hiearchy or the other? In other words, can SOLAQI
be in both DQ and sq? That's my focus, is SOLAQI
solely static quality? In it's static quality, can it
also possess DQ? People like Lila can have 5 levels of
quality, why can't SOLAQI? SOLAQI is a theory, and as
a theory, can it have DQ? SOLAQI is Intellect quality
BUT does it have DQ? What says Bo?
Second, is there communication without SOLAQI? This is
an extension of the first question. Are there forms of
communication uninfected by SOLAQI? Do we have DQ
communication? It would seem so based on Lila, who
communicates her DQ in well a DQ sort of way. It would
seem then all static levels can communicate in a DQ
sort of way. If that is true, then SOLAQI has a DQ
element too. If SOLAQI has DQ, then attacks on SOM
seem somewhat out of line. Why? If there is DQ to SOM,
there is value to it, and as such, attacking people
for SOMing is NOT accounting for the DQ of the SOM.
My general feeling is that SOLAQI blinds us to the DQ
of the SOLAQI and that is the sickness of SOM. SOM is
SOLAQI as sq only. A healthy SOLAQI encompasses SOM in
it's DQ and sq forms. SOLAQI becomes SOLAQIDQ, or
subject object logic as q intellect and dynamic
quality. Attacking SOM positions from the MOQ is
negative in most forms I have seen. The attitude is
"stop being static," you are saying to SOMers. I think
it might be more positive if you attack SOMers from a
DQ stance. What can make the SOM position better by
looking at it from a DQ point of view? Instead of the
negative dismissive attitude of a lot of MOQers to the
SOM, they would have positive attitudes, searching for
the lost DQ in the SOM position. Pirsig's method in
Lila demonstrates that: he deconstructs "substance",
"value", "scientific reality", and "causation." Those
deconstructions should be the model for criticizing
SOM positions. They are "positive" attacks and not
"negative" attacks. As Pirsig says, (114), "Unlike
SOM, the MOQ does not insist on a single exclusive
truth...One seeks the highest quality intellectual
explanation of things...the MOQ provides a better
[way] to interpret the world..."
I've seen a lot of negative attacks against SOM by
MOQers and to me that is the first sign that they
don't get it. The value of the MOQ is our ability to
read DQ into the world that was missing before. The sq
is still a value as equal as the DQ, but now the
missing part is given full weight.
So I must say I don't believe you do service to the
MOQ by negative attacks. I think positive attacks are
necessary and the appropriate way as demonstrated by
Pirsig (chapter 8). I hope I have been positive here
in my attack, as it were. I think SOLAQI is important
but places too much emphasis on the sq and ignores the
DQ of SOLAQI. I would suggest that you come up with
positive examples of how SOLAQI can be infiltrated
with DQ in ways that it has not. If someone is SOMish,
just say, yes, that is valid in a sq sort of way but
lets also not dismiss the DQ of intellect. You'll also
make a lot more friends of MOQ that way. In short,
would you accept SOLAQIDQ? If so, I'd agree. If not,
then let me know how you dissent.
Angus
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
http://health.yahoo.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 - 16:02:14 BST