From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jul 23 2003 - 05:23:41 BST
Good Day Rick.
On 21 July you wrote:
Bo pre pre prev.
> > > > Rick correctly observed that the static hierarchy is
> > > > NOT post-intellectual-LEVEL. What he calls "intellect" is of
> > > > course the dynamics that brought Intellect out of Society.
Rick pre prev.
> > > No. That's not what I was calling "intellect". The "intellect"
> > > that I was referring to is something that exists prior to all 4
> > > levels and DQ (prior to any categorizations of experience at
> > > all!), and subsequent only to the one, undivided Quality.
Bo prev.
> > Here we go again about the map metaphor. Is there a terrain that the
> > SOM and the MOQ are maps over? In my opinion not, a metaphysics IS
> > the ultimate reality and we end up in the infinite regress problem
> > here unless that is heeded.
Rick now:
> A metaphysics is the ultimate reality? Metaphysics is a description
> Bo. How can a description be the ultimate reality?
Is this the result of six(?) years of discussing the MOQ? The arch
somish notion of subjective map-thoughts about the objective reality
"out there"? No, it comes to a point where the "buck stops", and that
is what we call metaphysics in the SOM-MOQ sense.
Bo:
> > Lower down you say that Quality is the
> > one undivided reality ...etc. so what - then - is that "intellect"
> > prior to DQ?
Rick
> The "intellect" prior to metaphysical divisions is the awareness
> created in a Quality event. This is a topic that Johnny and I have
> been discussing in the "Novel/Computer hierarchy" thread. Check my
> last few posts in that topic for my thoughts on this.
The reality (metaphysics) Phaedrus of ZMM was faced with was SOM
(which logically will have to become Q-intellect of the MOQ) and at
that level DQ's interaction is through the human mind or "awareness"
BECAUSE SOM IS THE MIND/BODY DIVIDE ITSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Later in the fully worked out MOQ he postulates that the Q-evolution
STARTED with the static inorganic universe. It's Intellect's ceaseless
S/O that makes you see this ultimate reality of which even DQ/SQ is a
mere theory of.
Bo:
> > Such a "superintellct" is also an intellectual patterns and require
> > a hyper-super intellect which precedes IT ..and so on.
> Rick:
> You're apparently being confused by the equivocal use of the term
> 'intellect' (another topic Johnny and I have been discussing in the
> other thread). I see no reason why such a regress is implied by my
> explanation.
Yes, profoundly confused! :-)
> Bo:
> > You (all) refuse
> > the SOL-interpretation that cuts this Gordic clean off and continue
> > to look upon reality through intellect's glasses which creates this
> > infinite regress of "intellects".
> R
> I can't speak for anyone else, but I refuse SOLAQI for the same reason
> Pirsig does. As I understand it, it makes the 4th level far too
> narrow to agree with my experience and inexplicably squeezes the MoQ
> itself (another description) out of the 4th level.
Sorry for sounding pompous, but Pirsig said at first that he decided
against participating because that would make all listen to the great
author. Now that he HAS appeared, he will be pleased by us pointing
to "bugs". Regarding the S/OL-intellect being too narrow. Exactly for
the reason of NOT being able to contain DQ (and its many lesser off-
shoots - Aesthetics for example) the 4th. static level (repeat STATIC)
must be cut down to size.
Bo:
> > And the annotating Pirsig hasn't helped much. For example by first
> > saying this....
> > > "The main danger to the MOQ from subject-object
> > > thinking at present seems to be when it tries in a
> > > conventional way to encase values and declare them to
> > > be either objects or thoughts. Lila's Child p503
> > ...and then go on to defining Q-intellect as "thinking" and saying
> > that the MOQ is just another intellectual pattern ...a THOUGHT
> > which he calls the greatest danger to the MOQ.
> R
> Read it again Bo. He said that the greatest danger was trying to
> encase VALUES and declare them to be either objects or thoughts.
> Saying the MoQ is a thought doesn't contradict this because "the MoQ"
> isn't *synonymous* with "Values".
No one agrees more than me with the the first part, but the MOQ is
the reality where values play the primary role so saying that the MOQ
is just another THOUGHT (which follows from defining intellect as
thinking) ???????????
You also try to imply that the metaphysics the MOQ replaces - SOM -
is about values, but in it values are some subjective frills. It's AFTER
the MOQ is accepted that SOM may be seen as a values description.
> The MoQ (just like everything else)
> is a *species* of value. It's a static, intellectual, pattern of
> value.
I think you are in some logical "black hole" here.
R
> I would hope not considering he made his own name by pointing to and
> weeding out the bugs in the philosophy of others.
Point taken, but Bill Gates isn't able to debug his programs, yet is the
Windows owner. I am totally devoted to the MOQ, but of course
dismayed if it sounds like I'm out "to make a name".
Sincerely
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 : Wed Jul 23 2003 - 05:30:19 BST