From: SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com
Date: Thu Jul 03 2003 - 21:49:01 BST
> PIRSIG: "It is important for an understanding of the
> MOQ to see that although 'common sense' dictates that
> inorganic nature came first, actually 'common sense'
> which is a set of ideas, has to come first. This
> 'common sense' is arrived at through a web of socially
> approved evaluations of various alternatives. The key
> term here is 'evaluation,' i.e. quality decisions. The
> fundamental reality is not the common sense or the
> objects and laws approved of by common sense but the
> approval itself and the quality that leads to it."
> Lila's Child Note 97
Of course: A metaphysics (theory of everything) crystallize all of existence
in
its mold, but if the Quality Idea is seen as an all-intellectual pattern we
are
faced with the paradox of a part containing the whole. Heck even DQ
becomes a static intellectual pattern! No, it has to be something that is not
at home in intellect ...but you as a crypto--somist resists this. Btw.
Pirsig
says that a "set of ideas" is socially approved. Even ideas are treated at
the
social level.
sq: I've been called many things, but i am a crypto-somist am i? And Hindu's,
and Chinese, and Semites are not intellectual unless they agree with your
views?
> Chinese and Indian intellectual history is harmonised with western
> intellectual history by the Metaphysics of Quality. Chinese
> intellectual history of over 4,000 years has less differentiation
> between subjects and objects, and it has a variation of logic based
> upon the meaning of words rather than Pythagorean derived numerical
> harmony. Indian intellectual thought is embedded in apparently
> superfluous (to Western minds) religious and social custom, which in
> essence shares a common root with Chinese intellectual history far
> beyond 4,000 years.
Total agreement!
sq: You agree with your own view of this but not Mr. Pirsig's? It is becoming
very difficult to live in the Twilight Zone with you. You really are a spooky
man. It's like watching someone play with themselves.
> The correct Metaphysics of Quality unifies all intellectual patterns,
> and fully recognises the Quality of Chinese and Indian intellectual
> history. In fact, the correct Metaphysics of Quality draws heavily on
> Asian intellectual tradition, emphasising harmony.
Ditto!
sq: By 'correct' you are talking to yourself again aren't you? 'Correct' and
'harmonised with western intellectual history' is read agreeing with yourself
and not Mr. Pirsig?
> I do not wish to suggest that Skutvik knowingly asserts racist
> doctrine. I feel his views are largely a matter of his own cultural
> blind spot, and a very large degree of socially approved evaluations.
> Those who support him contribute to his evaluations. That is quite
> understandable and easily overcome by openness of thought and a
> willingness to explore ideas beyond one's own limited sphere. But
> Skutvik's insistence upon a racist assertion has been a considerably
> long one, and goes as far as his belief that his own very personal
> view of the Metaphysics of Quality is the 'proper' Metaphysics of
> Quality. Thus, the proper view for Skutvik is one that has deep racial
> and divisive undertones which completely deny intellectual history to
> Asians.
> Failure to address this issue may be very damaging to our Chinese and
> Indian friends, not to mention many other excellent intellectual
> traditions of the World. We also suffer a tremendous and staggering
> loss if we ignore our friends intellectual history. That was a
> motivation of F.S.C Northrop, and it has arguably ripened in the
> excellent work of Mr. Pirsig. squonk
> Where standards differ there will be opposition.
> But how can the standards of the World be unified?
You may not be as silly as you seem my dear antagonist. I also agree with
your about Wilber.
sq: But you do not agree with me. You read your ideas into my words and then
attribute your ideas to me. And THEN you agree with me! This is well spooky
man. I've had my head played with by some right nasty bastards in my time, but
this is not good.
Skutvik. (if you insist, but my surname is in the E-mail address and no
secret. Why don't you reveal your own for a change?)
sq: I will if Horse reveals his. But it's not important. I now have a much
clearer idea of where you went wrong.
squonk
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 : Thu Jul 03 2003 - 21:58:33 BST