From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sun Jan 25 2004 - 15:36:09 GMT
Hi all
It seems to me that the top value is freedom.
This implies that we have to make choices in freedom.
To make a choice in freedom is to take one option
as more valuable than the others. But we make mistakes,
hence the evils of the world. If we make good choices there
will hopefully be less suffering and evil, but we probably cannot
hope to eliminate it entirely, otherwise we would know
everything and not be learning. Quality perhaps needs to be seen
as elusive in this way. To be simplistic we enjoy eating with its
great tasty quality, but you can have too much of a good thing.
We certainly need to seek wider totalities, to take a swipe at
post-modern limitations (although lots of good work done with
respect to language, but you just cannot avoid ontology, if you want to
get below the surface).
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 6:18 PM
Subject: RE: MD SOLAQI as gift of understanding
> Mati
>
> Mati said:
> Could you summarize how SOLAQI is "incompatible" [with the rest of the
> MOQ]?
>
> Paul:
> The MOQ basic principle - some things are better than others - applies
> to everything. This means that, as well as some levels being better than
> others, some inorganic patterns are better than other inorganic
> patterns, some biological patterns are better than etc.....and some
> intellectual patterns are better than other intellectual patterns.
>
> Bo's interpretation of the MOQ states that something is only better than
> something else if it is in a higher level. This conclusion follows from
> the premises that each level is of "one value" and all patterns within a
> given level are of identical quality. Bo therefore defines levels as the
> value of X. When it comes to defining the intellectual level, Bo has
> suggested the value of the epistemological distinction of
> subjective/objective.
>
> Pirsig's definition of the MOQ levels is made by identifying different
> types of patterns. Inorganic patterns are defined as all energy and
> matter that does not contain DNA. Biological patterns are defined as
> those containing DNA in a self-perpetuating pattern. Social patterns are
> defined as the customs and institutions of humans living in society.
> Intellectual patterns are defined as abstract symbols manipulated into
> patterns of thought.
>
> Thus, Pirsig's definition of the intellectual level is such that it
> contains patterns that are not based on the value of "objective
> knowledge." Bo's definition excludes such patterns. Hence, the MOQ,
> being such a pattern, is excluded from Bo's intellectual level
> ("objective" in the MOQ could not possibly refer to a form of knowledge
> because it is a term reserved for inorganic and biological patterns only
> and the MOQ allows the existence of many truths).
>
> Mati said:
> When we talk about defining the "Mind" or "consciousness" related to the
> mind then, there seems to be distorted faith related to SOM.
>
> Paul:
> In the MOQ, mind and consciousness are just one level of patterns
> created by value. Do you think the existence of thoughts depends on
> faith?
>
> Mati said:
> Our "minds" idea is somewhat an illusion created by SOM. Ditch the "M"
> and our "minds" are no longer this mystic apparition but rather see
> ourselves as the rational reflection that is contrasted from S/O divide.
>
> Paul:
> By "mystical" do you mean mysterious? If so there's nothing mysterious
> about mind, unless you start looking for it with a microscope.
>
> Mati said:
> MOQ also resolves "Mystic" subjective reality into the social and
> intellect.
>
> Paul:
> Why equate subjective with mystic? I don't follow this move. How are you
> using the term "mystic"?
>
> Mati said:
> "Intellect enabled SOM" sounds like "The mind enabled SOM".
>
> Paul:
> Pretty much - Quality enabled intellectual patterns which enabled SOM.
>
> Mati said:
> Then we are back to mystic reality of the mind that gets us no where.
>
> Paul:
> "Mystic reality of the mind" again, I don't get it.
>
> Mati said:
> Part of it is debunking the myth of the mind. Pirsig wrote, "There isn't
> any "man independent of patterns. Man is patterns." Lila 179 I sense
> that this becomes more clear with SOLAQI.
>
> Paul:
> Mind is intellectual patterns. Man is intellectual, social, biological
> and inorganic patterns. SOLAQI isn't required to understand this.
>
> Mati said:
> One of the beliefs is that SOLAQI is seen as ugly and confining. I see
> it as liberating to understand ourselves as we are, no more no less. S/O
> reality provides for the distinct mirror to see who we are with a sense
> of dignity and honesty that SOM failed. And that is a very special
> understanding.
>
> Paul:
> I'm happy for you :-) but I'm still none the wiser for this sentence.
>
> 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
>
>
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 Jan 25 2004 - 15:45:38 GMT