RE: MD SOLAQI confirmed?

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Feb 02 2004 - 16:04:30 GMT

  • Next message: Matt poot: "RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ"

    DMB and Group.

    On 31 Jan. you wrote:

    > No need to shout. I understand what you mean, but don't think the
    > analogy works. For starters, there is a world of difference between
    > "compatible" and "identical". And even within the social level there
    > were many stages of mythological development. Hunter gatherers and
    > agrarian societies, for example, have a completely different sets of
    > myths. Surely intellect can evolve and go through stages as well?
    > Exhibit A...

    I wonder what has come over your? You know perfectly well that
    "different sets of myths" isn't an issue at all and neither is the
    "many stages of the S/O development". It was one ERA that
    replaced another, and this aligns perfectly with the social-
    intellectual shift of the MOQ. Your defense of the social was your
    finest contribution ...against those who see intellect meeting with
    biology squeezing the social reality into some insignificant
    episode. To defend Society's position is to take intellect down a
    peg from its all-embracing position. It is also to defend the MOQ,
    in ZMM social quality was quality itself (Aretê).

    PIRSIG:
    > "Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric.
    > Rhetoric is in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient
    > Greece. That is so historically, and that is so by any application of
    > common sense. The poetry and the myths are the response of a
    > prehistoric people to the universe around them made on the basis of
    > Quality. It is Quality, not dialectic, which is the generator of
    > everything we know." [ZMMp.391]

    Right, here it is. Quality in ZMM is social quality. Dialectic was
    SOM's "tool" and the antithesis of Quality and it came from the
    Sophists who were the last defenders of the old Aretê. In a MOQ
    context this means that SOM comes from the social level - and
    as intellect is was what comes from society ...voila! This is almost
    embarrassing, but you have obviously decided to turn a blind eye
    regardless.

    PIRSIG:
    > "A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the
    > first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is
    > into subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human
    > experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble
    > is, it doesn't. What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box
    > that sits above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen
    > this he also saw a huge number of ways in which Quality can be
    > divided. Subjects and objects are just one of the ways."

    This I have commented before. That the SOM don't fit as a
    metaphysics I know so well, but as the intellectual level it fits
    perfectly. About the huge numbers of ways Quality can be
    divided we have the four static ways. It's not exactly a huge
    number, but nobody seems able to come up with any more.

    > dmb says:
    > Why must the S/O value be retained? What does that even mean? And why
    > is there only one way to do it? Again, I'm lost.

    Why the S/O distinction must be retained is because it is the
    value system that the whole western civilization - science,
    technology, everything we know as modernity is built on. And the
    only way to save it is to give it the whole intellectual level. A
    "mental" intellect able to accommodate every possibly idea not
    only deprives the MOQ of its explanatory power, but is outright
    dangerous ...as in the example below.

    > But one thing is for
    > sure, if Islam won the West we couldn't rightly call it "an
    > intellectual expansion". Quite the opposite. I'd call it a regression,
    > a de-evolution back to social level values. And speaking in
    > geo-political military terms, I'd say it was quite a surprize. ;-)

    Of course it is a regression to social value, but the point is that
    you don't have any measuring rod identify it as such from an
    intellect able to contain every possibly idea. Some "ideas" are
    social, that's the point.

    Sincerely
    Bo

    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 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 16:06:16 GMT