From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Fri Jul 25 2003 - 18:13:29 BST
Rick, Bo, and all,
It looks to me like this is (in part) an argument over the usage of the word
"metaphysics". So (if I'm right) I suggest distinguishing two usages. The
first we might call "expressed metaphysics", and the second "underlying
metaphysics", and I'll use E- and U- for shorthand. My dictionary only
includes the first usage, but the second is, I think, also needed, though it
could be expressed in other words, like "underlying sense of reality". But I
would like the convenience of distinguishing between E-MOQ and U-MOQ, and
E-SOM and U-SOM.
So, I think it clear that an E-metaphysics is a static pattern of
intellectual value. But it is not at all clear (to me, anyway) what a
U-metaphysics is. This is important, since one's U-metaphysics shapes one's
perceptions and thinking. We are all (except perhaps a Zen master or two)
living with U-SOM, but (in this forum) desiring to live with U-MOQ. The
presumption is, and I think it's a good presumption, that by thinking over,
and valuing the E-MOQ, we will by and by contribute to the creation of a
U-MOQ (in each individually, eventually, into the society). The problem,
which has been mentioned often, is that we tend to use U-SOM to think over
the E-MOQ. Indeed, to characterize an E-metaphysics *as* an expression of a
U-metaphysics, comes out of U-SOM. It assumes that language is used to
describe reality, which it clearly is, in U-SOM. But is this true of U-MOQ?
But isn't that last question a U-SOM question?
At this point we must start wondering if the Zen masters are right that we
should just stop thinking about it (since "thinking about it" is a U-SOM
activity). Now I happen to disagree with this, because I think [sic] that
U-MOQ thinking is possible. (I don't want to get into this much at this
point. The trick, I think, is to change the meaning of the word "about".
Instead of seeing it as relating language to reality, think of it as
"circling about" some particular words, like "reality", "Quality", "value",
etc.)
Another issue is the relation of U-metaphysics to Ultimate Reality. By
valuing the E-MOQ, we are essentially saying that our existing U-metaphysics
(U-SOM) is not Ultimate Reality. What does that say about the U-MOQ? If it
becomes our U-MOQ, have we just shifted into another wrong U-metaphysics?
That is, is the U-MOQ the same as Ultimate Reality? On the one hand, it
would seem that we have to believe that it is, or our endeavor to create it
is foolish. On the other, the knowledge that we are trying to create it must
make us wonder.
And so on, so I think I'll just cut it off here.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: "Valence" <valence10@hotmail.com>
To: <Moq_Discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: MD The Intellectual Level
> Hey Bo,
>
> B
> > Good Day Rick.
>
> R
> And good day to you as well sir.
>
> > 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?
>
> B
> > 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.
>
> R
> You can call me an SOMer and insult my understanding of the MoQ all you'd
> like Bo (you're not going to call me a racist next, are you?), but it
won't
> change the fact that you still haven't answered the question, which was,
> "How can a description be the ultimate reality?" Can you answer that
> please? Because until you can show it's coherent (in any sense) to think
> that the ultimate reality is a description, your restaurant is serving
menus
> instead of food.
>
> B
> > 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...
>
> R
> No Bo. "[The MoQ] simply restates the empiricists' belief that EXPERIENCE
> is the starting point of all reality (emphasis added)." Not inorganic
> patterns. He says that the idea that the inorganic universe
chronologically
> precedes the other levels is simply a high quality intellectual pattern
> (see letter to A.McWatt, "Among these patterns is the intellectual pattern
> that says 'there is an external world of things out there which are
> independent of intellectual patterns'. That is one of the highest quality
> intellectual patterns there is. And in this highest quality intellectual
> pattern, external objects appear historically before intellectual
> patterns... But this highest quality intellectual pattern itself comes
> before the external world, not after, as is commonly presumed by the
> materialist.").
>
> > > 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.
>
> B
> > 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".
>
> R
> Frankly, I couldn't care less if pointing to bugs pleases him or not. I
> have always done it (and plan to continue doing it) regardless of how he
> feels about it. I'm sure he would do the same (imagine a Phaedrus who
> wouldn't raise his hand in class because he was afraid of hurting the
> chairman's feelings...ugh). And I hope *that* doesn't pompous ;-)
>
> B
> 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.
>
> R
> It 'must be cut down to size' because it's 'too narrow'? That's a new one
> on me Bo. Has it occurred to you yet that if you just drop the
'Q-Intellect
> = SOL' the 4th level will no longer be "too narrow"?
>
> > Bo:
> > > > And the annotating Pirsig hasn't helped much. For example by first
> > > > saying this....<snip>
> > > 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".
>
> B
> > 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) ???????????
>
> R
> Well that's your problem right there Bo. Just because Values play a
primary
> role in the MoQ doesn't mean the MoQ=Values. This would be like reasoning
> that since your heart plays a primary role in your body, your body = your
> heart; Or that since an engine plays a primary role in a motorcycle, a
> motorcycle = an engine. The MoQ is not identical with the values which it
> purports to describe.
>
> B
> > 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.
>
> R
> Did I imply that? Where?
>
> > > The MoQ (just like everything else)
> > > is a *species* of value. It's a static, intellectual, pattern of
> > > value.
>
> B
> > I think you are in some logical "black hole" here.
>
> R
> Okay... But don't just say that, show me how!!!! I don't see anything
> 'infinitely regressive' about the notion of a metaphysics that includes
> itself among the contents of reality. It's no more 'regressive' than the
> notion of a man writing a history which includes details of his own life
> (autobiography).
>
> B
> I am totally devoted to the MOQ, but of course
> > dismayed if it sounds like I'm out "to make a name".
>
> R
> You are totally devoted to YOUR MoQ. But don't be dismayed, the 'making a
> name' comment was strictly aimed at Pirsig (and I didn't mean anything bad
> by it, just a statement of fact), I don't think you're out for your own
> glory or trying get famous or anything silly like that. I just don't
agree
> with SOLAQI. That's all.
>
> take care
> rick
>
> When you meet someone better than yourself, turn your thoughts to becoming
> his equal. When you meet someone not as good as you are, look within and
> examine your own self. - Confucius
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 Jul 25 2003 - 18:31:50 BST