Denis, David, Roger and MOQers....
LET'S GET MYSTICAL
Denis, I liked very much your Idea of the "Mystic MOQ".
Effectively, I think you completely meet my sentence of last month: "That's
the KOAN of MOQ: Quality is undefinable; but we MUST define it, so we divide
it. And, doing it, we are immoral."
PHILOSOPHY?
There's another evidence that MOQ is a philosophy: we are accusing and / or
cataloguing (I hope not dividing!) each other as Solipsists, or Empiricists,
or Materialists, or Mystics ..... and so on. It happened the same in all the
other philosophies... similar structure, different meaning, of course.
Solipsist. Someone is accusing Denis, Roger and me of that. I want to refuse
this sentence. The meaning of that word is ... "just self". That is...
"Everyone has a world of his own, and that world is uncommunicable".
Saying that no one has the Truth in his backpack is very different by
Solipsism. Last month I wrote that agreement is a good target for
intellectual patterns. Every philosophy, opinion, policy, get more value by
obtaining agreement. This my post is searching for agreement. Searching and
achieving it is the opposite of solipsism: mediation, communication,
relativity and tolerance (tolerance, everybody!) are necessary conditions.
THE PIRSIG'S TOOL
I don't repeat my vote, it's the same of last month. I go on thinking Roger
is right. I want to bring another evidence of it (it's not new, I'm
repeating myself, but I want to go in more depth):
In the beginning of Lila, Phoedrus tell us his method by which he built his
MOQ. He files all the information he needs by answering to this question:
what comes before?
This Pirsig's evolving universe is not a discovery: it's the natural
consequence of his method. It's his starting point. No, better, it's his
tool! EVOLUTION IS THE TOOL PIRSIG USES TO DRAW HIS MAP! The 4 levels are a
consequence.
Well, how can we know if these levels are true? We MOQers can think they are
true, because they are able to explain universe. Someone else, with another
view of universe, rightly will say they are the fantasy of a mad American
thinker.
MOQ helps us to solve the problem: it tells Truth can't be our target. In
fact, objective truth doesn't exist, and subjective (solipsistic) truth
doesn't make sense. Only Good (Value) exists. Intellectual good is
InterSubjectivity, that is the Agreement obtained interlinking our personal
patterns (the only possible truth).
Only in this sense we can say the 4 levels are "true". If we say they were
just discovered, we say they were HOWEVER true before... No I'm not sure. I
need a "perhaps". I can say that "up to now, the facts we know SEEM to bring
us to the conclusion they are true". Tomorrow a Brujo could come among us,
and show us another way. If I don't put a "perhaps" in my thought I create a
dogma. I think RMP himself could not agree.
SOCIAL LEVEL MEDIATION
David B.
> someone (Marco?) said he found my stuff hard to
> read.
No, I didn't say it. Surely I have a lot of problems with this barbarian
language, but it's not your fault !!! ("Barbarian" in Greek means just
"Foreign"! ). I'm reading the Aristotle's metaphysics (in Italian, luckily)
and I find it really "hard stuff".
I must read and re-read all posts, but I think I understand. I have the most
problems when I want to say something (as you well can see).
(Mayday, mayday! Is there any Italian lurker there?)
I found really interesting your words about the Social Level Mediation. If I
understand well you are saying that myths are social PoVs; that our
intellect is not "free" , it depends on the lower PoVs. And this explains,
for example, the end of Lila (the Doll's funeral). Phoedrus must
perform this Ritual (intellectually absurd) to calm a urge coming from this
"social mediation".
I don't understand how this statement give us the evidence of levels
reality. Yes, it can be another support to MOQ, and I'm glad for it, but
it's not definitive. I go on needing a "Perhaps".
However, this statement seems to clash Denis' theory.... are you sure ?
Perhaps, saying that myths are the high form of socPoV, or the low form of
intPoV is the same thing! (It could mean that the cut between socPov and
intPoV is arbitrary).
It's not enough. I want to try a bridging between you and Denis. We
discussed a lot about language as the DNA of Intellect. DNA is a molecule
(inorgPoV). It's a set of information. Those information (genes) make
bioPoVs possible.
So, language is a socPoV. It's a set of information. Those information
(Myths?) make intPoVs possible.
When socPoVs raised, DNA went on building and preserving life. So when
intPoVs raised, this process of using language to create and preserve myths
went on. And maybe it will go on forever. But now it's not the main
process of intPoVs, it's a by-product, I guess (as life is not the main
process of socPoVs, but it's necessary) . So we have the Aristotle's
thought, the main product, and the Aristotle's myth (Ipse Dixit), the
by-product. It's unavoidable. A good myth make a theory more agreeable. Just
like a good Genetic make a family more tough.
What do you think?
Marco.
p.s. (this was written after part I and David B. answer only. I just
received Denis part II and other posts, but I've no time now....)
Ciao.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:12 BST