[MD] Metaphysics

[X Acto]

----- Original Message ----
From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 12:05:35 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics

Hi Bo:
9 Jan.I wrote:

> Where do you get the idea of if it's an intellectual pattern it must be
> thrown out? all we're doing is like you said, cutting the bad stuff out
> and keeping the good stuff the bad stuff is the belief that this view
> is reality. Or any one view is reality. That part you just simply will
> not accept and clinging to it is what has brought about your conflict
> between your view and Pirsigs view. -Ron 

Bodvar:
If the SOM (=Intellect) is pressed downwards inside your mind-
intellect it is no longer a high intellectual pattern, but "bad stuff" and 
the S/O distinction isn't bad at all, but - as said a million times - 
"modernity" itself and must be kept high and dry ... as the intellectual 
level itself.

That's one point, another is that it's impossible for two metaphysics to 
reside side by side inside a MOQ level because the level system IS 
THE MOQ.

Ron:
The problem is that you dogmatically cling to Pirsigs example
of how value expands the concept of evolution as absolute reality
and FACT. It is NOT. You cling to SOM justifications of
logic as proof of this when it's logic as a fundemental
constituant of reality that Pirsig attacks and debunks.

Bodvar:
 Such an "intellect" as yous is simply SOM's "mind" - a 
mental container where ideas reside - and if so SOM prevails.Try a 
little logic!

Ron:
Logic seems to be the problem, "Intellect" as mine, gives a particular type
of meaning to a particular type of experience in relation to a scientific
theory of the name evolution.
You maintain that this model IS reality, My view and Pirsigs
is that this model is one type of understanding of experience.



Bo:
I wonder who's clinging and I'm not in general conflict with Pirsig, 
about half of LILA supports the SOL and he has shifted ground on the 
intellectual level, the latest is in the Paul Turner letter (that Mati 
shows) where he rejects the thinking mind-intellect and comes within 
a hair's breadth of confirming the SOL before he is side-tracked.  

Ron:
And why do you suppose that is Bodvar?












> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sat, January 9, 2010 4:46:05 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Metaphysics
> 
> 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/
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 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/