From: Joe (jhmau@sbcglobal.net)
Date: Wed Jan 21 2004 - 19:19:50 GMT
On 20 Jan 2004 9:53 AM Jo Vo writes to Bo:
Jo Vo:
But to arrive at your conclusion, one has to find out whether there are
more/other systems of thinking that ALSO fit the criteria; and you do
not neglect that these can be identified as for example the Buddhism or
the Hinduism (those are not a religion only, but - according to Pirsig -
have also a metaphysical claim).
joe: i am intrigued very much by this statement! IMO looking at evolution
DQ has manifested in four different orders. Is there a metaphysics of the
inorganic order from the pov of creation? Is metaphysics different for the
emanation of the organic order from the inorganic order? The emanation of
the social from the organic, inorganic orders? The emanation of the
intellectual from the social, organic, inorganic orders? The arts seem to
indicate different approaches to the 'sweet spot'.
Religion, the assertion of a moral order, is different from the state. I am
asked to separate them. Religion seems to be oriented to my enlightenment,
and is very personal to me. Does religion suggest that my self-awareness
can be weak, and need a revelation, Faith, to see moral orders? The state
makes laws aimed at this self-awareness out of an organic point of view,
different metaphysics? Does the moral order determine the metaphysics? Do
Gravity, Sex, Love have metaphysical differences? Thanks, Jo Vo for
something so intriguing!
Joe
So, in case you would not find any other systems of thinking - i.e. another
element (subset) of that *class* - you were right to conclude that SOM is
*identical* with the Intellctual level.
> Another way to prove such an identity would be to show that the temporal
> coincidence (Emergence at times of the Greeks) of SOM and the
> intellectual level is *functional* and not *accidental* AND also that
> the existence of other systems of thinking is NOT *functional* to the
> emergence of the intellectual level .
>
> To prove the second is much more difficult, IMO: Pirsig obviously makes
> use of buhddistic and hinduistic ideas in both books. In fact I do see
> the MOQ as a synthesis of SOM, Hinduism and Buddhism. Pirsig doesn't say
> so explicitly, but indictions are overwhelming (Phew...: IMO).
>
> Once more: Write it down and demonstrate how SOLAQI works!! As long as
> we don't know about what we are talking actually, neither you nor other
> people have the possibility to argue it out properly.
>
> With best Regards, JoVo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Wed Jan 21 2004 - 19:20:24 GMT