On 2 May 2002 at 0:52, Angus Guschwan wrote:
> 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)).
Hi Angus
Much obliged for your wanting to discuss the SOL interpretation of the
MOQ in light of Wittgenstein, but Pirsig does not appear in any
philosopher's "Top Twenty" list so where he would have ranked is of
little interest.
> 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..."
As said I am grateful for your interest, but am not able to decipher the
above, and how it bears on the SOLAQI. The said idea simply says that
the Intellectual level is the (value of) distinguishing between an
objective and a subjective reality.
> 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.
Don't get what? The SOM or the MOQ? Your presentation of the MOQ
sounds good, so what's the problem? Do you see mine as wrong?
> 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.
Maybe you should have started with the end Angus because this -
slowly - starts to make sense. But whose attacks? Mine or people in
general?
SOLAQI placing too much emphasis on the sq and ignores the DQ ....of
SOLAQI! You mean of the MOQ? If so you have a point, I admit to
having objected to dynamic influence in the static part. If the levels are
to be seen as "standing waves in a featureless ocean" I don't see how
they (the wave-patterns) can be partly dynamic, but how this has
anything to do with the SOLAQI idea?? Honestly.
Pirsig says that the inorganic level is the oldest and most rigid patterns
there are, but does dynamic influence lessen with age? OK, maybe it
does.
> I would suggest that you come up with
> positive examples of how SOLAQI can be infiltrated
> with DQ in ways that it has not.
First: Let me just make this clear: SOLAQI is an interpretation of the
MOQ, not a separate metaphysics"? Second: Is there a greater barrier
against DQ infiltration in SOLAQI than in "ordinary" MOQ? How do you
regard things to make this claim?
> 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.
By-and-by some small light bulb has ignited, but this last paragraph is
still a mystery. SOLAQIDQ? How does it differ from ordinary SOLAQI?
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 - 16:02:15 BST