Re: MD Lila's Child

From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Jul 31 2003 - 18:47:07 BST

  • Next message: Joe: "Re: MD What does Pi.... mean by *static intellectual patterns*?"

    Hi Bo, and all,

    You posted this LC annotation:

    >102 which says:
    >
    >* " I see more clearly today than when I wrote the SODV (Subjects,
    > Objects, Data and Value") that the key to integrating the MOQ
    > with science is through philosophic idealism which says that
    > objects grow out of ideas, not the other way round. Since at the
    > most primary level the observed and the observer are both
    > intellectual assumptions, the paradoxes of quantum theory have
    > to be conflicts of intellectual assumptions, not just conflicts of
    >what
    > is observed. Except in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is
    > observed always involves an interaction with ideas that have been
    > previously assumed.....etc".

    I'm not prepared to address your "SOM Idealism" concept (I thought the two
    were exclusive) and was also confused by your "Idealism = Subjective"
    statement in your last post to Joe. Could you explain the "half" of SOM
    that is idealism to me, please?

    But regarding the Pirsig quote I have a big question. He says the objects
    grow out of ideas, not the other way around. Where do these ideas come
    from. Why do I have the idea that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris? If I go
    there, I suppose I will see it, and it will look like the idea I have of it,
    and grow out of the idea. What if I had no idea about it, had never even
    heard of the Eiffel Tower, and went to Paris. Would I not also see it, same
    as if I had the idea?

    Johnny

    >Ah! The "philosophical idealism" that I have spotted in several
    >annotations is a mere STRATEGY to get the MOQ integrated with
    >science (Quantum Physics). But why not say so to the MOQ readers?
    >WARNING now I am acting the role as a SOM idealist!. For instance
    >the annotation that Rick presented to me. (I haven't found the
    >number)
    >
    >* And in this highest quality intellectual pattern, external
    >* objects (matter) 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.".
    >
    >But is such a strategy possible, or wise? Analyzing the above.
    >
    >Pirsig says that SOM says that matter comes before mind, but this is
    >only the objective half of SOM, the subjective idealist half says the
    >opposite. With this erroneous opening it becomes a bit weird :
    >SOM is the highest intellectual pattern, but the MOQ is supposed to
    >be still "higher" (are there room at the top?). Still, the problem is that
    >the MOQ can't well adapt one half of SOM (the idealist) without
    >becoming a subset of SOM.
    >
    >This effort to make the MOQ an idealist philosophy is wasted because
    >(as he says lower down in # 102) the quantum findings are only weird
    >from a SOM p.o.v, but it has succeeded in the creating a lot of
    >confusion at this forum. But then, is it really a strategy? In annotation
    >after annotation Pirsig takes the idealist position - for instance in # 3 -
    >
    >"Without humans to make assuptions, that assumption cannot be
    >made ..etc.
    >
    >I don't know if this idealism follows from having defined the intellectual
    >level as thinking or it's the other way round: intellect must be mind to
    >"make assumptions", but any way it nullifies the insight that P. arrived
    >at in ZMM, namely that QUALITY is the creator of the Subject/Object
    >pair and thereby the materialist/idealist divide. It (idealism) also
    >creates problems for the MOQ as presented in LILA where intellect is
    >supposed to be a static level - out of the static social level - and in
    >conflict with the parent level. But where is the static element in
    >"thinking"? One may principally think of everything! And the conflict
    >with social value? Totally absent.
    >
    >But there is this little sentence in the opening annotation that saves it
    >all
    >
    >"Except in the case of Dynamic Quality, what is observed always
    >involves an interaction with ideas that have been previously assumed"
    >
    >DQ is excepted from the closed observer-observed circle, a reality
    >outside it.This is the most significant statement of the whole LC: Once
    >the Copernican Revolution was made the world became a QUALITY
    >existence and the static evolution began with the inorganic.The static
    >levels aren't quasi-intellectual patterns, rather the necessary base for
    >intellect.
    >
    >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
    >

    _________________________________________________________________
    MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
    http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

    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 31 2003 - 18:47:41 BST