Re: MD Is the MoQ still in the Kantosphere?

From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Fri Dec 10 2004 - 01:13:53 GMT

  • Next message: Mark Steven Heyman: "Re: MD Code of Art"

    Sam,

    Where is this Kantosphere essay? Was it posted? I've seen Joe's
    response, and your response to him, but I don't have the essay
    itself.

    msh

    On 9 Dec 2004 at 22:40, Sam Norton wrote:

    Hi Joe,

    thanks for the response, but would you be able to unpack things a bit
    more. Specifically:

    > joe: IMO no! Schleiermacher's schema has roots in a division
    between
    > mind-will-soul and matter. The term 'immediate consciousness' used
    > by Grace Jantzen reflects the presence of a mind- will-soul.

    Please do explain how "Schleiermacher's schema has roots in a
    division
    between mind-will-soul and matter". You're probably right, but it
    isn't immediately obvious why.

    > IMO following the MOQ's
    > description of experience, DQ/SQ, Quality has evolved the levels
    and
    > the emanations between dq/sq is mystical experience of the levels.

    You'll need to unpick that sentence a bit more before I can
    understand
    it. Although part of my argument is that 'the MOQ's description of
    experience' is basically Kantian.

    > In The Edge
    > of Chaos Mark M uses the term 'sweet spot'. For me this is a
    > description of the emanation of coherence between sq and sq.

    I agree that it was a useful essay but I can't see the relevance to
    this thread.

    > joe: it is true that No man is an island! IMO the academic
    community
    > has not fully explored the MOQ so what it says about Schleiermacher
    > is irrelevant.

    That's a non sequitur. Surely the argument is that because academia
    hasn't explored the MoQ, what it says about the MOQ is irrelevant.
    Whereas, because they have explored Kant and Schleiermacher, they
    should be listened to on them. And if I am right in saying that the
    MoQ parallels Schleiermacher, then some of their criticisms will
    correspondingly apply. Make sense?

    > A
    > description of a 'direct borrowing' by Pirsig from Schleiermacher
    > would not return value for value.

    Well, that's not what I was arguing for. The issue is the conceptual
    shape - see above.

    Thanks for taking the time to read it.

    Sam

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    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 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 10 2004 - 03:18:37 GMT