From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Sep 01 2003 - 06:39:14 BST
Hi Platt
On the 30th you wrote:
Bo previously:
> >As said in
> > this message I am the first to admit that a fundamental change of
> > outlook fundamentally changes reality, and maybe the MOQ is a
> > metaphysics based on the premises that - FROM A SOM p.o.v. -
> > everything is a human invention/only in our minds ...whatever. But
> > once the dice is cast it is impossible to return saying that the MOQ
> > is just a figment of
> > the mind as long as the mind/matter divide is invalid ..as a
> > metaphysics. The M is taken over by the MOQ.
Platt:
> But, Bo. Can't you see that in your first sentence "outlook" is
> subjective and "reality" is objective. You use the "S/O" difference
> that you rail against and call "invalid as a metaphysics" all the
> time, like in your "bug in the sock" (subject) "enormous vistas"
> (object) metaphor. It seems to me if your "rebel intellectual pattern"
> is valid, you would demonstrate how to use it to explain your views
> without falling back into the S/O level. Or is your rebel pattern
> "ineffable" after all?
Had it helped if I had said that a fundamental change of outlook
fundamentally changes the outlook ;-) But seriously - and as said to
Matthew today - the Quality as a "rebel intellectual pattern" will have to
be "out of intellect" the same way as intellect is/was "out of society" -
and as all levels are out f the parent - thus the S/O divide will be part
of it, but not in its metaphysical capacity, only as the great value I
thought you and I agreed on (that "modernity" is).
> What don't I understand? Are S/O assumptions so ingrained in our
> intellectual patterns that to eliminate them from verbal communication
> is impossible?
Yes, it is impossible. I "fall back" on speaking of subjects and
subjectivity and objects and objectivity while keeping the overall MOQ
"outlook" in mind (see, even use "mind" without any problems). It
would be hopeless to erase this from the vocabulary - even if I strike
down on it when we are into the metaphysics.
> If that's so, how is the MOQ anything other than an S/O
> explanation
Wait! It is not an S/O explanation, but a quality explanation why the
S/O came to be (and is) such a good explanation - the highest next to
itself.
> of the medieval religious vision that there is purpose in
> the world, that the world is a moral order, and in the end all things
> are for the best?
This was such a splendid formulation that I am reluctant to add
anything. The comment would be the MOQ tenet of the upper level
joining the one below its "natural born enemy". Thus an intellectual
rebel will join society in its effort to control intellect. This is what got
Pirsig and LILA so much bad press - in the intellect-joining-biology
variety - but the very knowledge of this "mechanism" is maybe
sufficient to keep it under control. Thanks for your comment Platt.
Sincerly.
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 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 06:41:10 BST