Dear MOQ Discussion group (Lila Squad)
So many interesting inputs have arrived recently that I'll hav to
make a sweep-up (I know I'm not called upon to comment on everything
but bear with me).
DIANA MCPARTLIN wrote:
> Suppose you are trying to convince someone of the MoQ. It's quite
> easy to show that there is something like value or art that can't be
> explained rationally. However people usually just dismiss that as
> subjectivity. To demonstrate that value is not subjective you have
> to prove that it exists outside of the subject. And in the som the
> only place that isn't subject-territory is the world of objects,
> specifically matter.
> If you can prove (in an som context) that DQ exists in both the
> subject and the object then the subject-object metaphysics
> collapses, because in the subject-object metaphysics you cannot have
> a phenomenon that exists in both categories - and the only solution
> to it is to conclude that the categories are wrong.
Excellent point Diana, but I have a hunch that this strategy will
fail and the reason is that Subject-Object Metaphysics (SOM) is a MOQ
term! As we know from Strawson-like statements nobody subscribes to
SOM, there are only subjectivists in countless guises
(idealists, spiritualists, spiritists..etc) or objectivists in as
many dis-guises, (logical positivists, materialists, sceptics), and
the two camps makes a great show of being at odds with each other
without seeing that they - like the believer and the heretic
"..perpetuating a common myth"
> It's not a test balloon. It's a line of reasoning that - if you
> could fill in the blanks - disproves the som and proves the moq.
> Well, show me another line of argument if you've got one, but I
> haven't seen it yet.
My position is that the MOQ should drop the pretension of being an
adjustment to SOM: it's revolution! On its own the MOQ is the most
powerful model yet seen, on SOM's premises it is - in Struan/Theo's
words: an ugly and unnecessary complication.
**
ROGER PARKER wrote
....so much and so well on Quantum Physics that it is impossible to
pick out one passage. I am deeply impressed by your knowledge and
interest in this exceedingly difficult field and agree with what I
understand of it. Most of all with this sentence:
> "Below are how quantum physics have attempted to explain reality, along
> with why we see no conflict in the MOQ"
You understand that it is subject-object thinking that creates the
Quantum riddles. Seen from a MOQ standpoint there are no conflicts.
Great! You win your own trophy! :-)
**
GLOVE wrote
...also so much on the Quantum subject that I can't bring a
full excerpt. Your point about Bohr "acknowledging a real object
behind the different phenomenal appearances." is surely correct - so
did Heisenberg in spite of any argument - who did not in the
nineteen twenties??? It is only with the advent of the MOQ that the
object truly can be discarded.
**
DONALD H Crawford Jr wrote:
> I believe I must question the absolute hierarchical, independent, and
> competing nature of Pirsig's 4 levels of quality. While it may be true, in
> fact I probably agree with it, there is such a danger in bowing to the
> higher level at the expense of the lower levels. In other words, you can
> have low quality ideas that may be quite harmful to the quality of the
> other levels. It seems to me that if an idea is truly of high quality, it
> would enhance the quality of experiencing at other levels. Often we see
> insanity the result of the intellect departing from its moorings to the
> point of sacrificing the other dimensions of experiencing. There is a
> dynamic tension between the levels that is a qualitative balancing act of
> sorts. A ravaged body won't generate ideas for long, and a social isolate
> won't have anyone to dialogue the ideas with...
I can't really see your "worries" about this issue. Pirsig stresses
again and again the mutual dependence of the Q-levels. The higher one
is built upon the lower so their values are intimately linked.
Particularly does he flog the Intellect for being oblivious to the
needs of Society (re.the sensitive chapter 40). Your references
to the insanity part of LILA reveals that there is another besides
myself who sees the radical shift from SOM's "illness" model to the
dynamic approach of the MOQ. I'm looking forward to meeting you
when that becomes the topic of the month.
You also wrote:
> Help me out here, as it seems to me the discussion about dynamic
> quality is getting rather wordy and complex. My limitations, I'm
> sure. In my mind, DQ is simply fresh experience, experience
> outside of existing patterns.
Relax, the DQ definition is impossible to all of us. :-)
You concluded:
> It's interesting to try to think and write these ideas without sliding
> into the conundrum of the subjective/objective dichotomy. The mixing of
> the Unity and Dichotomy paradigms makes for troubled digestion--bring on
> the pepto bismo!
True!!
**
MAGGIE HETTINGER wrote:
> I found something interesting relating to DQ within the chaotic-inorganic
> area. "Standard" physics says that time is an illusion. If this is
> true, there is no MoQ, because MoQ is all about evolution, about
> differences caused by value choices over time.
> The assumption that "time is an illusion" seems to be an article of
> faith among scientists, even though the lay world has yet to comprehend the
> concept. The theory that steps past this assumption is chaos theory.
Good to know that you still are there, Maggie.
"Time as illusion, an article of faith among scientists"! It must
be the least observed article ever:-) but seriously. Your proof for
time's reality - the MOQ evolution - brings us back to Kant (or his
deputy Donny Palmgren). His position was that time and space are
prerequisites for everything - the scene the play is acted on - but
the MOQ says that time and space are Intellectual Patterns of Value! A
(real) time beside the time concept has no meaning in the MOQ. This
does not say that evolution did not happen before Intellect/language
came along and in one instant "created" the world. It merely says
that at no level below Intellect is "time" a value. Time is no
Inorganic value. Neither a Biological one. Social? Perhaps did time
have its origin here (as language or emergent SO-thinking), but only
at the Intellectual level did it (along with space) reach its present
status as a concept for mathematical manipulations.
Writing the above : .... Intellect/language created the world....
brought me back to my speculations on the subject, and my gratitude
and admiration for Pirsig being able to cut this SOM-induced Gordic
Knot rises to new heights. Anyone who thinks along SOM's lines will
necessarily end up in one out of two dead ends. The objective one is
so silly that you must be a Nobel laureate not to see through it, but
the subjective is a dangerous solipsistic/nihilistic slope: the world
created by mind and mind being nothing.....gone when you die!. I
backed away scared as h... but could not quite forget, not until
meeting Pirsig did I understand that I had not been
"insane".
PAUL ROGGIO wrote:
> I like that(to the squad)makes me feel like i am part of something.
That's what we all feel. It looks like the Lila Squad has
attracted the nicest and brightest people there are on this side of
the Milky Way.
Thank you all.
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:35 BST