From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Sat Oct 22 2005 - 19:13:21 BST
Mark M,
Scott said:
And this is a point of the MOQ that I think needs
correction, namely "aiming" or "evolving toward DQ".
It is based on centric mysticism, and as such needs to
be corrected by the differential mysticism of
Nagarjuna and others.
Mark 21-10-05:
I'm studying Nagarjuna right now as part of an Indian
analytical philosophy course within my MA. I will have
to get back to you on this point.
However, from what i think i already understand,
Nagarjuna, and i regard him to be of the finest
intellectual quality, did not have a conception of
evolution to contend with. Please bare this in mind
Scott? As Pirsig says, the karmic wheel doesn't just
revolve, it is attached to a cart and that cart is
going somewhere.
Scott:
I doubt if Nagarjuna would have any difficulty with evolution. But I think
he would regard that last statement as dubious, as assuming that evolution
has a cosmic goal, and cosmic goals are idols.
Scott:
Or one insert something other than the MOQ, namely a
MOQ that has been corrected to understand that ALL
goals, including "aiming for DQ" are capable of being
deconstructed. In doing so, intellect frees itself
from another limit. It is no longer cybernetic, or
rather, can choose to be cybernetic or not.
Mark 21-10-05:
Fair point. However, i take issue with your notion of
deconstructing that which is conceptually free. I do
not think that is at all possible.
Scott:
It its the locution "aiming for" that gets deconstructed, and it is
certainly not concept-free.
Scott said:
It looks to me like this secondary ontological layer
is just required to avoid saying that intellect is DQ.
The beginning of epicycles, so to speak.
Intellect is creative. DQ is creative. What's the big
deal? Just say intellect is DQ and be done with it.
But no, apparently we must instead learn to see the
creativity of intellect as a "mere seeming" of
creativity.
An appearance/reality distinction manufactured to
preserve dogma.
Mark 21-10-05:
Jesus wept, that's a vitriolic statement isn't it?
Who put the bee in your helmet?
Are you telling me that the suggestion that no one can
tell you what DQ is is actually a dogma? I would have
rather thought that DQ explodes dogma?
sq produces dogma, not DQ, surely?
Christians and Bodvar Skutvik expound dogma Scott; it
is the likes of they, who tell you what is to be
understood and ejaculate* when you refuse to
understand who expound dogma.
Does Nagarjuna expound dogma when he suggests there
are no essences; emptiness of svabhava? The MOQ
replaces emptiness with that which pulls evolution
towards itself, thus combining nagarjunian, mahayana
Buddhist views with evolution.
2sqEO is near the cutting edge and is an empirical
experience of creativity at work - creatively diving
into the unknown - the un-static, to further quality.
Scott:
"Dogma" just means "teaching", so yes, I would say that Nagarjuna expounds
dogma, as does Pirsig, and as do I. There is a body of SQ written by
Nagarjuna, commented on (in different ways, resulting in competing dogmata)
by others, which all adds up to attempts to convince others to think one way
or another, and to guide one once one has accepted the dogma. Christianity
is a way of life, and Christian dogma serves to guide one on that way. Same
with Buddhism and Buddhist dogma. (And within each there are, of course,
many variations).
The dogma that I perceive being advocated by the MOQ is what Magliola calls
"centric mysticism" (and as an aside, I hope in your study of Nagarjuna you
read Magliola's "Derrida on the Mend"). The pivotal dogma of Buddhism is the
line from the Heart Sutra: "form is not other than formlessness,
formlessness is not other than form". It looks to me like the MOQ goes with
the first, but stops there. DQ is another name for formlessness, SQ is
another name for form. The indications that the MOQ has not gone past the
first bit to the second are that "dynamic" always gets capitalized, but
"static" does not, and that one is told to see evolution as "evolving toward
DQ" rather than, say, the play of DQ and SQ. In sum, it is privileging DQ
over SQ. It puts DQ at the center, and SQ at the periphery. Now as I've said
(most recently to David M), it is not necessarily a bad thing to promote as
a religious discipline an attitude of "striving for DQ", or "stop SQ to
experience DQ" (that is, to preach centric mystical dogma). But it is bad to
base a metaphysics on it.
Scott said:
Why should I drop the word 'information'? Just to be
faithful to the MOQ?
Using that word is what I am arguing for. Where there
is value there is intellect. Where there is preference
there is choice, and handling choices is intellect
(drawing out consequences, comparing them, choosing).
In the absence of comparing and choosing there is no
preference, and no value. Just automaticity.
Mark 21-10-05:
The choices intellect makes are aesthetic ones. This
is the view of Poincare as told in ZMM. Hardly any
physicist (physicists are bleedin' prime examples of
those who may be regarded as 'intellectuals i assume)
will argue with that. Some replace that aesthetic with
God, the MOQ says DQ. DQ is central to creative
thought.
Scott:
No argument here, as you are saying that intellect implies value. To this I
add that value implies intellect (value implies preferences, implies drawing
out consequences and making comparisons to make choices, which is
intellect). I notice that you and others never refute this. You just ignore
it, and claim that I don't understand the MOQ.
Mark M:
And after going all around the houses, look where we
are: Cybernetics and sq evolution - Secondary ontology
as harmony. Note: Harmony, Poincare? creativity? The
roll of sq in all that? An MOQ framework?
Why can't you help me go forward instead of dragging
me backwards month in month out?
Scott:
Because from my point of view I am trying to help you to go forwards. There
are materialist remnants in your thinking that, as I see it, are preventing
that from happening.
Scott:
Intellect localized in human individuals (making them
individuals in a sense) fairly recently. But the idea
that intellect did not exist at all until then is a
remnant of materialist thinking, which for some reason
the MOQ keeps around.
Mark 21-10-05:
Good God, you know how to stretch a persons patience.
It's so simple a chimp could get it.
Intellect is 'made' of the same 'stuff' as rocks, but
intellect is configured at a level of sophistication
far beyond that of rocks.
A bit like comparing a folded paper plane with
Supersonic Concord.
Scott:
Intellect is not 'made' of anything. It makes everything. To say that
intellect evolved out of the same 'stuff' as rocks are made of is a remnant
of materialism. All that has been done is to replace 'matter' with 'value',
and ignore some consequences of doing so.
Scott:
(And I would not say that rocks have primitive
intellects. Rocks are bits of the manifestation of SQ,
the expression of intellect.)
Mark 21-10-05:
This sounds like idealism to me. I'm not happy with
that.
Scott:
Does to me too. Why aren't you happy with it? Better, explain how you define
'idealism' such that what I say is idealism but the MOQ isn't (assuming you
think it isn't).
- Scott.
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 : Sat Oct 22 2005 - 19:19:02 BST