[MD] Metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ron

8 Jan. you wrote:

> Better late than never Bodvar, welcome to the party. SOM is a high
> quality intellectual pattern, believing that it is absolute and the
> ONLY true description.. is the problem. 

I don't know what this is supposed to mean or if you can't read. I said 
that SOM is THE static intellectual level 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."  

If one makes SOM one intellectual PATTERN (to be thrown out in 
some metaphysical trash can) to be replaced by the MOQ as another 
intellectual PATTERN is killing the MOQ. Everything going on iside a 
mind-like "intellect" makes SOM prevail.  

Bodvar










>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Fri, January 8, 2010 3:42:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics
> 
> 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/
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
>