From: Mati Palm-Leis (mpalm@merr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 29 2004 - 05:34:21 GMT
Mark,
Against my better judgment I will engage your posting.
I respect Zen Buddhism as a religion that tries to account for life in
terms of a spiritual reality. Philosophical metaphysics accounts for
terms in terms of a rational reality. I suspect that the void between
spiritual and rational realities are narrowest between Zen Buddhism and
MOQ. Yet the divide is real enough and it would be an interesting
discussion as to why that is.
You write:
The MoQ describes patterns of value in an evolving relationship with
DQ.
Creativity may be stated to be a relationship between the totality of a
static repertoire and DQ. That is a coherent explanation based on MoQ
texts, and is described well by yourself as a, flow' of creativity. This
is a real gift of understanding.
If you feel you have been given a gift of understanding, please shine
your understanding light and illuminate experiences you have had to help
teach us something? Anything? Apply your understanding and explain
something? Anything? Please? I have been asking, 'The supreme being' who
you feel gave you your gift to do the same for years, and without a
single answer.
Mati: From my perspective SOLAQI only does one very important thing, it
nails down the static level in terms of intellect. Using SOL as a
reflection of who we are in contrasting terms of the subjective and
objective realities offers a way which is far truer that was know
before. It clears the muddy waters and allows us to see who we are for
what we are with no ambiguity. So how does SOLOQI account for
creativity, it doesn't! Creativity doesn't account for intellect either.
Creativity is a product of DQ, not SQ. Pirsig describes how DQ pervades
the four levels. He is right. To pervade doesn't mean to become.
Creativity can't become intellect. Bo commented on this when he wrote,
"They think about concepts like aesthetics, intuition, intelligence, ..
things beyond the S/O divide and want Q-intellect defined in such a way
that it supports all these. Even Pirsig of LC seems to have joined the
chase.
But all these things are facets of the dynamical aspect of existence -
out of which Phaedrus picked "the mother of them all" QUALITY. To a
lesser or greater extent they all share the same ambiguity that makes
it possible to construct a metaphysics similar to the MOQ around
them. This does not diminish P's achievement one iota, his stroke of
genius was to identify and challenge the SOM, then replace its S/O
slash with the Dynamic/Static one.
As the present top level Intellect is our age's REASON and reason
can neither explain Quality nor its many variants. That's the whole
point of my insistence upon Q-intellect being S/OL (subject-object
logic). Intellect can't explain any of these ambiguous yet unavoidable
phenomena. It can't explain intelligence* in animals without reverting
to the slanderous "instinct" term, it can't explain our sense of beauty
..etc, .but places them all in its subjective box. Not part of reality!"
Mark writes: The MoQ explains Intellect as a repertoire of static
patterns of value in an evolving relationship with DQ. Therefore, we
have two static descriptions of the intellect - One is the totality of
our static repertoire (which cannot be listed or viewed in one instant
as it is too sophisticated) and the other is the total repertoire in a
relationship with DQ, (which points to a process and therefore also
cannot be captured in any static description).
Mati: Acknowledging DQ exists, even as a repertoire and then calling it
a "Static description of the intellect" doesn't make sense.
Mark: When you say you prefer a description of the intellect, the
description you prefer is a completely static one bounded by a severe
conceptual wall.
Mati: If you are saying that accepting SOLAQI conceptually as the
"static" level as the defining factor of intellect, you are right. All
levels have a severe, conceptual wall. The wall from the inorganic to
the biological is pretty severe is one example.
Mark: When i say i prefer a description of the intellect, my description
cannot be defined or bounded other than indicating or pointing to DQ. In
other words, you have no vocabulary for showing that intellect is a
staggeringly creative, Dynamic, beautiful and ethical process.
Mati: One thing language provided was a capacity to reflect a host of
values from S/O to DQ/SQ. That is not to say that values come from
language, but rather language can reflect the values we experience.
This includes all aspects of life, again from Inorg. to Intellect and
DQ/SQ. To say intellect is, "creative, Dynamic, beautiful and ethical"
is inaccurate. I think it would be, more accurate to stay that, "When
intellect as a SOL static reality is pervaded by the dynamic realities
of creativity, intuition, aesthetics,etc..., we begin to see the "Code
of Art" as the 4th dynamic morality."
Mark: As a teacher Mati, i should like to think you wish to inspire your
pupils with wonder and delight in the beauty and joy of discovery. I
know if my children were under your care and tutelage, i should wish for
you to do this with them - I should wish for this to be the aim of
education for all children.
Mati: I am slowing becoming of the opinion that education is the process
of two realities. First, to establish high quality static values of
knowledge, with the capacity to recognize them as quality values.
Second, be true the 4th moral code, which is I believe can be a reality
with every child. A reality that needs to be fostered by family,
schools, community. The problem is we are to busy enforcing the 2nd and
3rd level of moral codes.
Mati
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 : Thu Jan 29 2004 - 07:08:19 GMT