From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Fri Jan 23 2004 - 16:33:27 GMT
Mati
Mati said:
In my mind I get where Bo is coming from and understand and see how
SOLAQI works.
Paul:
I understand it too, but I disagree with it because it is incompatible
with the rest of the MOQ.
Mati said:
This statement is based on a sensibility that does not require faith but
rather the capacity to see SOM and how it works.
Paul:
I'm not sure what faith has to do with it, but if by SOM you mean the
belief that reality is reducible to either matter or to mind or to some
combination of the two, then I think I have the capacity to see SOM and
how it works.
Mati said:
SOM is the "new mythos" that is engrained in this "body of knowledge
that unites our minds". The problem is S/O Metaphysics, not the S/O
divide.
Paul:
Agreed. The MOQ retains and resolves the S/O divide as the distinction
between inorganic-biological patterns and social-intellectual patterns.
"The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect
and society, subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of
them in a larger system of understanding. Objects are inorganic and
biological values; subjects are social and intellectual values. They are
not two mysterious universes that go floating around in some
subject-object dream that allows them no real contact with one another.
They have a matter-of-fact evolutionary relationship." [Lila p.344]
Mati said:
The reality is that Mankind through SOM has been reaping the benefits of
the S/O divide while suffering the consequences of "M". Zen Buddhism
seemed to see this and side stepped this notion of SOM all together. In
any case when man was able to use the SOM mirror he was able to see
himself as he had never seen himself before. It was this new capacity
that creates the new "intellect" level.
Paul:
Or it was the new capacity of intellect, the capacity for abstract
thought, which enabled man to see himself as never before. I argue that
it was not that SOM enabled intellect but that it was intellect that
enabled SOM.
Mati said:
But that "M" in the SOM mirror creates a distortion that we have
naturally accounted as real life. It was that "M" that Pirsig wrestled
with and MOQ liberates us.
Paul:
Agreed. The intellectual structure of the MOQ incorporates the reality
of value which does not fit into the category of subject or object. In
the MOQ subject and object fit into the category of value.
Paul previously wrote:
The fallacy is that it does not necessarily follow that, because the
first intellectual pattern was SOM, every intellectual pattern is SOM.
Mati said:
I would modify the SOM to S/O divide and then for a brief moment
consider this. The "true intellectual value" of knowledge can be a
reflection and be seen in the S/O mirror. Every last bit of it.
Paul:
I'm sorry Mati but you lost me here.
Regards
Paul
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 : Fri Jan 23 2004 - 16:34:01 GMT