From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Sep 04 2003 - 08:55:52 BST
Paul and People
On 2 Sep. you wrote:
> But Bo, as my wasted "sermons" are trying to demonstrate, I sincerely
> think that the "inconsistencies" you have found are of your own
> invention.
I have the impression that we started on our respective south and
north wall of the MOQ-Everest only to find ourselves facing each other
at the summit. If my memory serves me one of your arguments was
the one in ZMM where P. asks the reader to show where gravity was
before Newton. I suddenly felt the need for applying just the very
same example (for the opposite purpose naturally) and when I
dicovered that I decided to call it a day. I will just answer your
questionnaire below.
> There are two things being discussed here, so let's try and do this
> properly:
> a) Define and demonstrate the problems existing in Pirsig's MOQ
> without making reference to the interpretation required for your
> "solution"
a)
I may sound like Suonk, but there are NO problems in the MOQ, the
difficulties have emerged with the mind-definition of the intellectual
level (better: "SOM-definition"?) that has taken hold in this group after
"Lila's Child". This definition undermines the fantastic potentials of the
MOQ because the "mind" concept itself is a SOM product and wrecks
havoc if re-introduced as ONE level in the MOQ static system. By the
way, it would be just as fatal if the inorganic level was defined "as an
exact equivalent of matter", but for some reason Pirsig refrains from
THAT.
> b) Demonstrate that your "solution" solves the problems you have
> defined and demonstrated
b)
When it comes to intellect-as-the-S/O-divide it solves everything. I
hinted to the the artificial intelligence impasse caused by SOM's
mind/consciousness/awareness fallacy, but this is not the place for
long explanations. The proof for the said definition is overwhelming, its
emergence out of the social level in LILA looks like a blueprint of the
emergence of the SOM out of Mythos in ZMM, and the indications of
the intellect as emerging with the Greeks are plentiful in that book. I
can't start on all that, but the point is that the intellectual level defined
as the S/O divide - along with the rest of the static sequence - makes
the MOQ something revolutionary and with an enormous explanatory
power.
Sincerely
Bo.
PS. Just this:
Bo:
> Now, a
> development inside intellect is plainly impossible because it would
> degrade the MOQ by pushing it down on the "idea" scale.
> Paul:
> Plainly impossible? If a better idea emerges, we could be talking
> about where the MOQ fits into the framework of the better metaphysics,
> or we could improve the MOQ to take into account the better idea.
"A better idea"? You take for granted that it will be an idea that accept
MOQ's axioms? What if it rejects them? Even the scenario that you
paint of a system where the MOQ is some subset will mean that
VALUE is not the fundamental reality any more, and that it's picture
of DQ is left ...even that of DQ operating under different analogies.
THAT is just another idea according to you, isn't it?
I see that you go on, but right here this thread ends for me. We will
certainly meet at other crossroads.
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 : Thu Sep 04 2003 - 08:56:19 BST