[MD] Transhumanism

[skutvik at online.no]

Platt, John, Andre, All. 

14 June

Platt had said
> > > The relevance of the MOQ is clear. Science has a defect. "The defect
> > > is that subject-object science has no provision for morals.

There are kind of morals in SOM, but they just exist in our subjective 
minds and - moreover - belong to religion which was/is science's 
enemy, and as science has come to undermine religion's morals in the 
form of social order deteriorated.  That was the situation before the 
MOQ. Platt is right here.       

Andre:
> > And you are according it the highest (intellect)ual status...and
> > defend it to the tooth!

The proverbial in-out metaphysical turn that made SOM into the static  
intellectual level also robbed it of the authority to make morals 
"subjective", on the contrary its subject/object distinction became a 
moral subset.  So it's possible to defend intellect and attack SOM.         
 
John
> That's exactly what they're doing.  But you have to admit, science IS
> the highest (intellectual) status in MoQ terms.   They're just
> following what is correct.

Hmm, sounds good but a bit cryptic.

> Too bad that what is correct, is wrong. "Intellect" is a faulty label
> for the creative symbolic manipulations which guide social patterns.
> The connotations (!) of intellect in our society exclude Art, which
> Pirsig himself accords the higher archy. 

Creative symbol manipulation can hardly undermine social value.It's 
the "objective attitude that deem social morals subjective that did that.

> And Science devoid of Art is Not the highest human "knowing" and there
> is nothing more to say to any who thinks otherwise. By what art OR
> science can the scientifically- oriented, be made to realize the value
> of art? An ongoing question, but only for those who are brain-pliable
> enough to keep asking. And as Matt so eloquently pointed out, there is
> resistance to accepting any other's viewpoints on a forum dedicated to
> arguing, and certainly enough ambiguity and misunderstanding in the
> language we use, that none need ever "lose" by admitting another's
> viewpoint. 

We discuss the MOQ and there must be a best way of understanding 
it and that is the one free of SOM's influence and Matt's "eloquence" is 
SOM to the hilt 

Andre:
> > [ speaking from a SOM prison]... (as condemned by you and
> > Bodvar).

John:
> It is true also, that we all dwell in a SOM prison. I guess some guy
> living in a hut on a mountain can escape the dominant paradigm, but
> since we all have internet access, I make assumptions about the common
> worlds in which we dwell.  And "A SOM Prison" sounds like a pretty
> accurate description to me.

OK, but once the SOM-MOQ transformation has taken place, internet, 
car,  wife, house job ...etc. are no "bricks in the SOM prison". 

> John the agreeable (even tho he just got fired today)

Hope Lu can support you for a while.

Bodvar