From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Dec 21 2003 - 16:51:32 GMT
Hi
Bo:Q is more awesome and inaccessible than all this DQ-yelping (on
> this site) indicates. EVERYTHING is found in the static hierarchy
DM: I agree with this in terms of every-'thing'.
Bo:> It's no use for me to comment on these particulars because if
> intellect is seen SOLELY as conceptual analysis we are squarely
> back in SOM where intellect takes the place of the subject while
> the rest of the static sequence is the object.
DM: Well I take postulated concepts as something communicable and
repeatable/static to this extent, obviously life is not only perception,
knowledge, language, it is also activity, and purposeful, intelligent,
creative. Are you refering to intellect as a form of activity rather than
a form of knowledge, or are you just trying to focus on the
creative/emergent
aspect. Certainly I see purpose as beginning with light which seeks out
the shortest path in an intelligent manner as Leibniz was shocked to find.
The construction of the world is clearly technological from atoms to DNA.
Any inventor will tell you that with out a purpose/aim in mind you are never
going to build anything that works.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2003 9:24 AM
Subject: Re: MD MoQ versions
> Hi David M..
>
> You started (the previous message) by asking what my ideas were
> and where to find them, my reply was the following:
>
> -----------------------------
>
> After having gone through Matt's "Enigma" no wonder you don't
> understand my argument, nor do I :-)
>
> > Bo where will I find your best constructed argument? I can't see it
> > in the essays page.
>
> I would say the SOLAQI essay at Dan Glover's Tripod site. If he
> still has it? But my idea in a nutshell:
>
> Primarily: The intellectual level is the subject/object
> distinction. Secondarily: For the MOQ to call
> intellect a static level it (the MOQ) must be some view offset to
> intellect.
> ---------------------------
>
> ...but then I found another one from you.
>
> > Hi Bo
> > I take Pirsig as saying that quality/experience is cut into
> > subject-object for the purposes of analysis.
>
> "Quality/experience is cut into subject object...etc? A strange
> formulation this .. I would say: The MOQ replaces SOM.
>
> > This leaves
> > value/activity/purpose on the side of the subject and quantifiable
aspects
> > of quality on the side of objects.
>
> This sounds like that MOQ is supposed to fit the SOM scheme. It's
> the other way round: SOM is to find its place INSIDE the MOQ!
>
> > He proposes SQ and DQ
> > as a form of analysis where value exists on both sides so that
> > value can be part of our analysis of the SQ aspects of quality.
>
> Q is more awesome and inaccessible than all this DQ-yelping (on
> this site) indicates. EVERYTHING is found in the static hierarchy.
>
> > Leaving DQ as a purer abstraction of the holistic concept
> > of quality, so pure it is in fact the concentration of all aspects of
> > quality that are contingent/changing/creative and therefore beyond
> > analysis and conceptual grasp.
>
> Yes, something like that.
>
> > Now where do we introduce intellect into this? Intellect is clearly
> > about conceptual analysis.
>
> Intellect is (as said) the value of the subject/object distinction. I has
> many aspects, here CONCEPTS/WHAT IS CONCEPTUALIZED!
>
> > very intellectual and deliberate
> > about where it makes the cut of quality into SQ/DQ. In fact SOM is
> > less intellectual in that, I would argue, it has been constructed
> > over a long period of time, is assumed in a great deal of our
> > language, probably relates to the construction of the ego, has
> > played a part in the construction of individualism, has been
> > supported and developed by Capitalism, has worked in partnership
> > with the sciences, etc, etc, and is hard to ascribe to intellect, in
> > as far as we ascribe the activities of intellect to individual
> > thinkers, problematic and perhaps wrong as this is.
>
> It's no use for me to comment on these particulars because if
> intellect is seen SOLELY as conceptual analysis we are squarely
> back in SOM where intellect takes the place of the subject while
> the rest of the static sequence is the object.
>
> > So Bo, where does intellect come into all this?
>
> As said above!
>
> Thanks for your interest David.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Sun Dec 21 2003 - 16:55:23 GMT