[MD] Metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Andre
(The Flying Dutchman has landed! ;)

7 Jan. 

I had said (to Steve)::

> > Yes, you bet, metaphysics in the the true MOQ  sense is reality,
> > that's the very point!

Andre;

> When I read this, something dawned on me but couldn´t give it
> expression until I lay, quietly on my electric blanket (it is fucking
> freezing here!). Then it came to me...the passage in ZMM (I think)
> where Phaedrus has a conversation with a priest and they are talking
> about the liturgy, the most sacred part: when the wine changes into
> blood, and the bread changes into the body of Christ. Phaedrus asks
> along the lines of; (sorry I do not have a copy of ZMM with me) yes,
> but this is symbolically..yeS??. No! says the priest, this is real. At
> that moment, the wine and bread change into the actual blood and body
> of Jesus Christ! Christians all over the world actually and factually
> believe that this is indeed the case. And, further more, the Bible is
> of course seen, not as a book full of stories ( if I may take the
> liberty, as a book full of fingers pointing to the moon!!) but as the
> actual word of God.

I'm awe-struck. Suddenly out of the blue comes this exact 
interpretation of the MOQ. It's plain as day that it was/is SOM's 
objective view (exemplified in this above passage about the 
communion sacrament), that was the rationality that Phaedrus set out 
to trash. However, just rejecting SOM wholesalely as an untenable 
"intellectual pattern" (in the Peterson sense)  to be replaced by the 
MOQ (as a better intellectual pattern) would be a slippery slope back 
to religious fundamentalism and worse and that we won't have - SOM 
is after all "modernity" itself -  the solution is MOQ's making the S/O 
distinction it's highest yet static level which means eating the cake and 
keeping it.

These just some preliminary comments, I need time to savor it all and 
maybe elaborate some points, but from my first reading there isn't 
anything "wrong" at all, rather points better expressed than by this 
person.  I thought this Christmas had turned into a anti-SOL putsch, 
but it suddenly turned into a SOL ditto.  


Bodvar











         

> Bodvar ` forced´ me to think about the MoQ from this perspective (not
> as a religion, not as an act of faith) but as a true statement of
> Reality...of Quality. The positing of the MoQ in this context gave me
> a further glimpse into how Bodvar `experiences´ the MoQ. He firmly and
> absolutely believes in it...though believing is an inappropriate
> expression to use. And, just as the Bible is perceived as containing
> the actual words of God ( not symbolically but real...to our Christian
> believers), so is the MoQ as a metaphysics, a statement, a programme
> perceived by Bodvar to be a statement of Reality... of Quality written
> by Phaedrus. Not just any Phaedrus. No! The Phaedrus of ZMM and as on
> occasions he appears in LILA. This is then why Bodvar  treats, for
> example, the reality/concept, the abstract/concrete, the
> reality/language, the Quality/MoQ, dichotomies with such derision. The
> Quality reality has `absolved´ us from these because the S/O reality
> has been `overcome´ by a `higher´ understanding. The DQ/SQ reality
> which `contains´ everything as moral patterns of value. How, Bodvar
> asks, can one pattern of value (language) 'make' another pattern of
> value any less real? The social word 'tree' (as a social PoV) is not
> the same as the 'tree' as an inorganic PoV?
> 
> As he said to Marsha, does naming DQ detract from its reality?
> 
> The bone of contention, of course remains that Bodvar argues that, the
> way to contain S/O thinking is to make it static and to make it the
> 4th level of the MoQ as the only way to overcome its influence and
> tentacles. This `frees´ DQ from inadvertently being placed in the
> service of SOM. It allows the MoQ understanding to `reign´ with SOM
> being firmly and securely behind (intellect[ual]) lock and key. And
> reign one does `from above´ and not from the same `level´!
> 
> Attempting to avoid smart remarks and the like I firmly believe that
> this very, very different from a religious thing so comparisons should
> not be made .(see the Northrop reference below)
> 
> What Bodvar also asked me (or rather, through this moment of
> realisation) confronted me with, is to what extent I am committed to
> (or want to surrender to) the full implications of the MoQ.(if I
> accept that Bodvar does have a real, genuine point). Do I want to
> treat it as a stimulating academic subject? Do I want to dabble in it
> as a dilettante? To what extent do I accept this Q-reality and to what
> extent am I willing to commit myself? And, will I do this full-time or
> part-time? Do I want to live the MoQ?
> 
> Northrop says somewhere that one does not require a `belief´ in the
> `undifferentiated aesthetic continuum´ (Quality). It can be
> apprehended immediately and thus verified.
> 
> I recognise Quality through simply living/experiencing so there is no
> escape and the questions above are not really relevant. Question is,
> to what extent am I willing/committed to follow DQ and follow Good?
> Or, conversly, do what is (SOM) reasonable and follow S/Q  with a bit
> of DQ when it suits me?
> 
> Points to ponder but, perhaps for some this was just a boring example
> of soliloquise.
> 
> For what it is worth.
> Andre
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
> 
>