From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sat Jan 17 2004 - 16:02:24 GMT
JoVo and All
15 Jan. you said:
> yes, it's always very interesting to have discussions with you;
> although I have to read some sentences of your posts more than once to
> find out what it could mean. I don't have that problem with other
> postings, normally. I guess that has to do with your dealing on SOLAQI
> for years, already... or whatever.
It must have to do with my poor English (according to the
Squark).
> What do you mean by "SOM versus MOQ size"?
I mean it as it stands. Aristotle was the coiner of the metaphysics
term, but as he also was the father of SOM (according to Pirsig)
all metaphysics up to the MOQ has been somish to the core. We
are dealing with something enormous when it comes to the
MOQ.
> What do you mean by "...that in this new Quality Reality many truths may
> exist..." and "...along with the social, biological and inorganic
> sub-truths. ..." ?
The first lesser truth of MOQ's hierarchy is the inorganic and the
last (!) the intellectual. These are all subordinate to the greater
DQ/SQ TRUTH.
> JoVo
> Besides I do not quite understand the last part of that pargraph
> ("..., I find that...."): This is your position again, but no
> additional support of it.
One can't resolve a metaphysical dispute at the end of each
sentence ....(Lila p. 64) My point is that the MOQ - seen as an
intellectual pattern - puts it in the same league as the lesser
truths. That can't be, it's the ultimate reality beyond.
> JoVo:
> and he finished his - the above - footnote with (Pirsig):
> PIRSIG:
> > "The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation
> > but some kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in
> > the MOQ that I know of that leads to this conclusion."
> You might have already guessed, Bo, that it was this very sentence, that
> lead me to make my remark about your insistent efforts, concerning
> SOLAQI.
Yes, I know that Pirsig says so, but in the same letter he also
says that his opinion no Papal Bull (he even adds that it might be
just "bull...") I admire him for such a generous uttering.
> Well, yes that is ok for me - more or less. No need to shout! :-)) Yes
> they were! I don't understand what you have always with the Greeks. And,
> yes, it is all written down in ZAMM.
Many speak about an 'intellect' that precedes the level, but all
other levels are identical with their respective value. Anyway, you
agreed that the Greek experience=the emergence of the
intellectual level, and as it also is the emergence of SOM ...you
affirm the SOLAQI.
> At times of the Greeks it would have been correct for them to view their
> intellectual system of value patterns as THE intellectual level
> exclusivly,
The Greeks didn't know any "intellectual level". They had
discovered a reality greater than the old mythological one,
something that becomes intellect's takeover from society in the
MOQ! But in one sense you are right: Once this new reality
settled down it crystallized everything in its form ...the SOM.
> but we live today and we have not only the knowledge of
> other intellectual patterns of value, no we have the moral obligation to
> try to find better and better solutions for the description of the world
> - i.o.w. - to develop a metaphysics that helps us to understand the
> world.
You speak of the MOQ and SOM as if their "patterns/terms" are
interchangeable (of the same level) but up above you agreed to
my thesis, ergo, intellectual patterns will remain somish till
kingdom comes, but as the MOQ is non-S/O it is beyond intellect.
> We are so lucky to have already such a metaphysics, the
> MOQ.
Amen !!
> But Mr. Pirsig - as oustanding as his work is - is no alien; he
> doesn't comes from Mars!
Perhaps it's necessary to think in that scale.;-)
> No, he is a contemporay and his thoughts and
> also the MOQ IS already a synthesis out of different cultural
> influences including SOM, whether you want that or not.
Right, the MOQ is from SOM. Platt called it "a SOM document"
something that provoked Pirsig's # 126 annotation (that Dan
pointed to) P. says that the MOQ employs SOM's value in the
same way that SOM employed social value, something that
strongly indicates that he regards the MOQ as beyond SOM.
> And also
> Pirsig tells us to consider the MOQ as provisional. And how about the
> practical implementation: You pronounced in the above, that it is a
> development what keeps working inside the intellectual level; it is a
> process!
Where do I pronounce that? Is it the "out of the SOM" thing?
But this post is approaching the limit, I will treat the rest - along
with the New/Old Europe issue - in the next instalment.
Soon.
Bo
PS.
You asked for a short presentation of the "Subject/Object Logic
As Quality's Intellect" (SOLAQI) idea. The acronym sounds more
forbidding than it is, simply that the intellectual level is SOM.
There is a very good essay about written by Dan Glover to be
found on his site,
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/SOLAQI.htm
Dan made a superb job in tracing its origin and I can't do it any
better. It must be added that this does not mean that Dan agrees
with it. Guaranteed not! ;-)
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 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 16:11:51 GMT