From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Dec 02 2005 - 07:30:52 GMT
Paul, (Ian perhaps)
On 29 November Paul wrote:
> Paul: I see we are back to your "static metaphysics = the whole of
> reality" fallacy. DQ *is* outside of the MOQ because the MOQ is a
> static pattern and reality is not just static.
Pirsig has said that there's only the DQ/SQ dichotomy, thus DQ is
part and parcel of the MOQ. But I have admitted that MOQ's
"framework" naturally will remain behind as a static (intellectual)
pattern, while it simultaneously constitutes the Quality Reality
beyond - in the same sense as carbon remains inorganic while it
constitutes biology. Isn't this the same as your: "DQ outside of the
MOQ" same?
> >And this goes on. When providing examples of intellectual
> >patterns they invariably are SOM-ish. "Science" - the said arch- SOM
> >representative. "Democracy" - straight from SOM's homeland Greece.
> >"An objective judicial system" - speaks for itself. "Free Press and
> >all freedoms of expression" - to prevent (Socratic) truth from
> >succumbing to censorship. "Human rights" - a democracy fallout,
> >something almost all examples are by the way.
> Paul: Science is an application of rationality.
Right, did I call it something else?
> Democracy is a
> system which controls the relationship between social institutions and
> intellectual laws. The judicial system is the promotion of lawful
> judgement by rational argument at the expense of social prejudice.
> Free press is the protection of truth from censorship,
Democracy is all about subduing social patterns. There are no
such things as "intellectual laws" - in the judicial sense - they are
by definition social, but can be modified by intellectual values.
Sharia Law is a pure social judicial system - harsh but extremely
effective..
> but truth and objectivity are not synonyms. Human rights cover the freedom of
> thought and expression, and the right to lawful judgement by rational
> argument, independent of one's socio-economic status/origin. All of
> this is compatible with a definition of intellect as rationality,
> especially one which recognises values in its operation.
"Truth and objectivity not synonymous" ...hmm what's the catch
here? At least they are synonymous at the intellectual level.
Otherwise I don't get the point of twisting and turning these
simple-straight from-LILA ideas, is it plain impossible for you to
admit the obvious: Pirsig uses these somish examples to outline
the 4th level because it is the S/O divide!
Pirsig has dropped the mind- or "thinking" intellect, but introduced
the "manipulation of symbols" definition, but there's nothing that
indicates such a value in the known clashes between intellectual
and social values? For instance the Islam vs West one where the
issue is democracy and human rights & worth. These things are
evil because God prescribed no such things, it will destroy their
societies ...which is partly right according to LILA, if intellect isn't
"subdued" by the MOQ.
And one more thing Paul. In all Q-development the lower level is
controlled by the upper. Why is the fourth level suddenly
supposed to be controlled from within? This is a break with one of
the most fundamental and credible principles in the MOQ. Again
to prevent your zooming in on the "higher level" notion, the MOQ
is no level but in its relations with intellect some level-like traits
occur.
> Paul: That's exactly what I've recently said. Stop trying to prove
> that the SOL is Pirsig's real intention - which he has rejected
> outright - and if it is better than Pirsig's formulation it will prove
> to be so in time.
Trying to prove?
> You don't see e.g. Matt or Scott or Sam trying to
> prove that Pirsig really meant that DQ is "a compliment paid to
> innovation" or it really is "Intellect" or that what he really meant
> by the intellectual level was "the eudaimonic level." They are all
> suggestions to improve on Pirsig's MOQ. Why is your SOL
> interpretation different? What is it you think you have that they
> don't?
I agree about the said persons, they don't have a MOQ agenda
other than criticize it from Barfield's or Rorty's points of view. You
may add David Morey and Ham to the list. I on the other hand
subscribe to every axioms and see Pirsig as the greatest thinker
of all times, it's just the intellectual level that must become what it
was meant to be - A STATIC LEVEL - before the MOQ can wield
it immense power.
Bo
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 02 2005 - 08:03:23 GMT