Re: MD The intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: hampday@earthlink.net
Date: Wed Sep 21 2005 - 06:11:00 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD The MOQ implies that there is more to reality than DQ & SQ."

    Hey there, Bo (you too, Platt) --

    While complaining about the general lack of direction on the MD, I said:

    > I'm also listening to Platt and Bo reach a consensus of two on their
    > agreement that Value is the "ground-stuff" of reality, but only "if
    > one finds the MoQ of value!" (I thought Quality was supposed to be
    > the ground -- or was it Experience? Oh, that's right, they're all the
    > same thing!)

    You replied;

    > What I meant by " ..if one finds the MOQ of value" is that people
    > may have a feeling of "something rotten" without having the
    > courage, capacity or whatever it was that launched Pirsig on his
    > Quality quest. I was one who felt so intensely, but believed that
    > the mind/matter divide was indigenous to existence. I simply had
    > to find Pirsig's book before seeing his Quality=Reality solution,
    > but it was only a few pages into before I knew that THIS WAS IT!

    I take it that seeing Pirsig's Quality=Reality was a real epiphany for you.
    Good. Not everyone can be won over by so simple an expression. I think
    this "equation" could be translated to mean "reality is what you like about
    it". Which is a nice, 'feel-good' homily that doesn't get us very far
    toward an understanding of where existence came from, why we are here, and
    who/what we really are.

    > I haven't followed the thread about "consciousness" because I
    > see this as some SOMish leftover - its "angles on pinpoints" -
    > from people who hasn't understood the first thing about the MOQ.
    > I believe I once told you that if you see consciousness the
    > groundstuff, please go ahead and construct a MOC, I don't think
    > you bothered to answer.

    You misquote me. Essence, not consciousness, is the "groundstuff" of
    reality, although I do consider awareness of Value the essence of man. I
    already have constructed a philosophy of Essence (POE?); it's called
    Essentialism, and it's all detailed on my website, www.essentialism.net .

    > I think too many see MOQ's intellect as "intelligence",
    > something that is wrong because it is supposed to be
    > a static level and "intelligence" can hardly be regarded
    > as static.

    I agree.

    > In my opinion SOM has never been transcended in
    > many people's MOQ. OK, my target in this regard
    > isn't you or Scott or whoever, because you have never
    > shown any interest in it.

    I'm not sure what "SOM has never been transcended" means. If you mean that
    most Pirsig supporters still talk about Q=R in SOM terms, I couldn't agree
    more. The MoQ is not a metaphysical thesis, in my view, but a belief system
    loosely based on Eastern mysticism. My personal interest is metaphysics,
    which is why I abstain from most of the Quality heirarchy parsing that goes
    on here. It doesn't mean I'm not interested so much as that I can't
    contribute to a discussion about something I don't subscribe to.

    > Quality DOES convince me as the primary source, but I see the
    > Dynamic/Static split as important too, why I said that if you see
    > consciousness as primary and do the same you have a viable
    > Metaphysics of Consciousness. I'm not sure who Cus... is, I
    > faintly recall some Medieval bishop and if so God was his primal
    > source. And God is Good! Dynamic God/Static God. Inorganic
    > God ...etc. Perfect!

    It was a writer named David Hoffman, I think, who expressed his belief that
    everything in the universe can be reduced to Consciousness. I don't see
    that this contradicts the MoQ which asserts that Experience=Reality, since
    one must be consciously aware to have experience. But you should learn more
    about Nicholas Cusanus (Cusa), one of the principal theorists of the
    medieval era, a scientist of his day, whom some regard as the forerunner of
    the Renaissance.

    Here's a short biography snipped from Wickipedia:

    "Nicholas of Cusa (1401 - August 11, 1464) was a cardinal of the Catholic
    Church, a philosopher, a mathematician, and an astronomer. He was born
    Nikolaus Krebs in Kues, Germany (latinized as "Cusa") to a merchant family,
    and received his doctorate in canon law from the University of Padua in
    1423. After a successful career as a papal legate, he was made a cardinal
    by Pope Nicholas V in 1448 or 1449, and was named Bishop of Brixen in 1450.
    His work as bishop was opposed by Archduke Sigismund of Austria; the duke
    imprisoned Nicholas in 1460, for which Pope Pius II excommunicated Sigismund
    and laid an interdict on his lands. Nicholas of Cusa was never able to
    return to his bishopric, however: Sigmund's capitulation in 1464 came a few
    days after Nicholas's death at Todi in Umbria.

    "Nicholas of Cusa was noted for his deeply mystical writings about
    Christianity, particularly the nature of the Trinity. Many believe he was
    influenced in this by the work of Thomas a Kempis. He was suspected by some
    of holding pantheistic beliefs, but his writings were never accused as being
    heretical. Most of his mystical ideas can be found in his essays, De Docta
    Ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance) and De Visione Dei (Vision of God).
    Nicholas is also considered by many to be a man ahead of his time in the
    field of science. Though he predated Copernicus by half a century, Nicholas
    suggested in some of his scientific writings that the Earth was a nearly
    spherical shape that revolved around the Sun, and that each star is itself a
    distant sun. He was not, however, describing a scientifically verifiable
    theory of the universe: his beliefs (which proved uncannily accurate) were
    based almost entirely on his own personal speculations and numerological
    calculations. He made contributions to the field of mathematics by
    developing the concepts of the infinitesimal and of relative motion. Cusa
    was the first to use concave lenses to correct myopia."

    If you and Platt are interested in solving the riddle of Creation, please
    join in my discussion with Reinier who, by the way, is more attuned to the
    MoQ than I am. (We could both use some fresh insights.)

    Nice to hear from you again, Bo.

    Regards,
    Ham

    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 : Wed Sep 21 2005 - 06:24:57 BST