[MD] Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 55, Issue 158

[Joseph Maurer]

On 6/26/10 3:32 PM, "moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org"
<moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org> wrote:

> Send Moq_Discuss mailing list submissions to
> moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> moq_discuss-owner at lists.moqtalk.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Moq_Discuss digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. her ways (MarshaV)
>    2. Re: her ways (LARAMIE LOEWEN)
>    3. Re: her ways (MarshaV)
>    4. Re: Left brain, right brain, whole brain. (david buchanan)
>    5.  The MOQ by the moqists Part 2. (skutvik at online.no)
>    6. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (ARLO J BENSINGER JR)
>    7. Re: Thought of the day (david buchanan)
>    8. Re: DQ: to define or undefine (John Carl)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:25:26 -0400
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: MoQ <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Subject: [MD] her ways
> Message-ID: <1286FE03-FD49-4CD1-895C-296B2D2173FA at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> 
>  
> THE VOICE OF THE ANCIENT BARD
> 
> Youth of delight! come hither
> And see the opening morn,
> Image of Truth new-born.
> Doubt is fled, and clouds of reason,
> Dark disputes and artful teazing.
> Folly is an endless maze;
> Tangled roots perplex her ways;
> How many have fallen there!
> They stumble all night over bones of the dead;
> And feel--they know not what but care;
> And wish to lead others, when they should be led.
>  
>    (Blake)  
> 
>  
> ___
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:44:02 +0000
> From: LARAMIE LOEWEN <ldlproductions_ at q.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Subject: Re: [MD] her ways
> Message-ID: <SNT103-W11862A69406548535C1F958FC80 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Eagle And Earwig, Essays On Books And Writers -
> 
> Colin Wilson; Part 2: Individual Writers - 11 -
> 
> The Work Of Ayn Rand - 210
> 
>  
> 
> My first post at this forum was to Marsha.
> 
>  
> 
> How about another post suggesting the Orphic Of Delphi ...
> 
>  
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
>  
> 
> Laramie Loewen
>  
>> From: valkyr at att.net
>> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:25:26 -0400
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Subject: [MD] her ways
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> THE VOICE OF THE ANCIENT BARD
>> 
>> Youth of delight! come hither
>> And see the opening morn,
>> Image of Truth new-born.
>> Doubt is fled, and clouds of reason,
>> Dark disputes and artful teazing.
>> Folly is an endless maze;
>> Tangled roots perplex her ways;
>> How many have fallen there!
>> They stumble all night over bones of the dead;
>> And feel--they know not what but care;
>> And wish to lead others, when they should be led.
>> 
>> (Blake) 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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/md/archives.html
>  
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 16:35:01 -0400
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] her ways
> Message-ID: <57FE1C34-3758-43D8-B763-69774F978592 at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> 
> Laramie,
> 
> 
> Orphic Of Delphi?  With the oil filling of the gulf?  Need
> any one be told what is not good?
> 
> 
> 
> Marsha
>  
>  
>  
> 
> On Jun 26, 2010, at 3:44 PM, LARAMIE LOEWEN wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Eagle And Earwig, Essays On Books And Writers -
>> 
>> Colin Wilson; Part 2: Individual Writers - 11 -
>> 
>> The Work Of Ayn Rand - 210
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> My first post at this forum was to Marsha.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> How about another post suggesting the Orphic Of Delphi ...
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Cheers, 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Laramie Loewen
>> 
>>> From: valkyr at att.net
>>> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:25:26 -0400
>>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>>> Subject: [MD] her ways
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> THE VOICE OF THE ANCIENT BARD
>>> 
>>> Youth of delight! come hither
>>> And see the opening morn,
>>> Image of Truth new-born.
>>> Doubt is fled, and clouds of reason,
>>> Dark disputes and artful teazing.
>>> Folly is an endless maze;
>>> Tangled roots perplex her ways;
>>> How many have fallen there!
>>> They stumble all night over bones of the dead;
>>> And feel--they know not what but care;
>>> And wish to lead others, when they should be led.
>>> 
>>> (Blake) 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ___
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 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/md/archives.html
>>  
>> 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/md/archives.html
> 
> 
>  
> ___
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 14:47:34 -0600
> From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Left brain, right brain, whole brain.
> Message-ID: <SNT139-w5280DA0A486CA58F67BC17DAC80 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Krimel asked:
> My question was what is the difference between "circularity" and "paradox" on
> the one hand and "platipi" on the other? Also could you clarify the meaning of
> this term you have taken to using recently: non-conceptual.
> 
> dmb says:
> A platypus is an analogy for anything that doesn't fit into existing
> categories. Circularity, in a context like this, is a type of invalid
> reasoning wherein the conclusion is used as a premise to reach the conclusion.
> A paradox is a statement that seems contradictory but turns out to be valid
> upon further inspection. The fact that light is a wave and a particle, for
> example. In the same way, defining something as undefinable only sounds like a
> logical contradiction.
> 
> Non-conceputal is just another term for pre-intellectual, that idea we find in
> ZAMM, Lila and James's radical empiricism where it is called pure experience
> and the immediate flux of life. Northrop calls it an undifferentiated
> aesthetic continuum. Dewey calls it "Had" experience, as opposed to "known",
> by which he means conceptually known. That's all non-conceptual means. It just
> means "not conceptual". Emotions, feelings, moods, intuitions, sensations, or
> anything in the affective domain would count as non-conceptual. Some of it is
> unconscious, not just un-conceptual.  ;-)
> 
> 
> 
> Krimel asked:
> If these "two competing ways of thinking and being" cannot be explained in
> terms of the brain, why is he talking about the left hemisphere.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> Because it's part of the story, part of the explanation. Reductionism is when
> you take it as THEE explanation all by itself. Again, to explain cultural and
> philosophical differences in terms of neurological processes or structures is
> to REDUCE culture and philosophy to physiology. (There's no such thing as
> Nirvana, it's just parallel processing.) And it is simply an error to treat
> philosophy and culture as if it were just a product of biology. Cultures and
> philosophies are not caused by brains or equal to brains or determined by
> brains. Brains are a necessary but insufficient condition of cultures and
> philosophies, which are evolved structures too, but they're patterns of a
> qualitatively different kind with processes of their own. Yes, the brain is
> more than just relevant to the story but the cultural and historical part is
> every bit as important and the latter is actually the object of inquiry.
> Understanding how the brain works is supposed to help us understand the
> meaning o
>  f cultural flowerings, such as the Axial age and the Renaissance, and the
> meaning of philosophical ideas, such as the distinction between static and
> dynamic quality. 
> 
> Krimel said:
> As I said, the literature on this subject is rich indeed and from what I can
> tell of McGilchrist's recent book may be a worthy addition to that literature.
> But wouldn't it be easier and more productive to focus on a book like Jonah
> Lehrer's "How We Decide" which you have cited and recommended to us, rather
> than a book you know only from a radio interview and we know nothing at all
> about? Or perhaps you could link us the interview. I have no wish to discuss
> your impressions of someone you haven't read.
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> I haven't read either of those books yet. But I know enough to see that they
> will be included in my bibliography because they'll support my thesis quite
> nicely and neatly. That's just how you have to do it when you're pulling
> sources together, which is what I've been doing. You investigate the things
> that seem promising, read a few sections, scan the index, read a review or two
> and I've found there is often a short version of the central ideas available
> because they had been previously published as a Journal article by the same
> author. That's super handy. Then you know for sure what you're getting.
> 
> Secondly, I think everyone knows that brain science wasn't invented yesterday.
> Everybody knows the field has a history. But scanning technology has really
> opened things up in the past few years. That's why it's so exciting right now.
> Psychology and the philosophy of mind are equally exciting as a result. And
> guess whose views are being vindicated by this new work? He he, ha ha, ho ho.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy is not the too busy. Combine all your e-mail accounts with
> Hotmail.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multiaccount&ocid=PID28326
> ::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_4
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:52:23 +0200
> From: skutvik at online.no
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: [MD]  The MOQ by the moqists Part 2.
> Message-ID: <4C266887.2716.1585D2 at skutvik.online.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
> 
> Arlo, Craig, Mary, All.
> 
> [Mary]
>> The Pirsig Levels are SOM representations of the indefinable insight
>> Pirsig had early on.
> 
> Wish Mary would limit herself. Pirsig levels? The levels are static
> levels of quality. Full stop!
> 
> [Craig]
>> However, it does not follow that SOL = SOM nor that SOL cannot be part of
>> the MoQ. (Nor that insights are either definable or indefinable.)
> 
> Right you are Craig, The SOM minus the "M" rank can well be part of
> MOQ's static range, in fact it is the  highest and best part. Come
> forward more forcefully Craig
> 
> [Arlo]
>> Not only this, SOM is the specific metaphysical position that posits that
>> "subjects and objects" is the fundamental metaphysical division of
>> "reality". How on earth can the "Pirsig levels" be SOM? That's inane.
> 
> How dense can one be? The subject/object distinction  - the ability to
> tell whats objective from what's subjective is MODERNITY itself and
> must be held high in the role of MOQ's highest static level. As SOM it
> leaves us with an amoral reality, inside MOQ's moral universe it is the
> highest static moral.
> 
>> So here's some remediation. SOM = a particular metaphysical view that
>> holds the subject/object division to be the primary metaphysical
>> division of "reality". MOQ = a particular metaphysical view that holds
>> that the dynamic/static division is the primary metaphysical division
>> of "reality". These are both "intellectual patterns", and both inform a
>> particular response to experience.
> 
> The intellectual level is a MOQ level and cannot contain the MOQ
> without creating a logical impasse. When it comes to (try to) disprove
> the SOL no argument too weird ... but in vain.
>  
>> SOL, "subject-object logic", is one of those terms that, I gather, means
>> "logic derived from operating within an SOM orientation". There is no
>> "necessary SOL" needed to convey the MOQ, that's about as idiotic and
>> incoherent a statement as one can put forth.
> 
> ... and no language too base, but the SOL will not go away because it
> IS the MOQ
> 
>> The MOQ as written by Pirsig does not make use of SOL, because the author
>> is not operating from within an SOM view.
> 
> Course he isn't. The only correct thing you have said. He makes the
> SOM a quality subset.
> 
>> Of course, you could say that "language", with its "subject" and "objects"
>> makes all discourse "SOL", but that's ridiculous. It would be just as true
>> that "language" with its "verbs" and "time" makes all discourse ATL
>> (active-temporal logic).
> 
> No, Arlo, the language argument is your Ad Hoc invention so you could
> ridicule something.
> 
>> There is really only one thing the fuels the "SOL", and that is a loathing
>> of "intellect". The view that this is some sort of ipso facto cancerous
>> lesion atop an otherwise moral and harmonic existence. And that those
>> horrid, evil interlictials with their black teeth and dirty fingernails
>> are responsible for all the worlds ills.
> 
> Now there is something. Not loathing Q-intellect but the SOM it had
> developed into while it was "leading edge", but once robbed of its
> metaphysical rank all is well.
> 
>> Ah, if only we could get rid of that damned intellect, all would be
>> glorious! So instead of following Pirsig's brilliant insight to remedy a
>> blindspot in the dominant intellectual paradigm, we simply rage against
>> the intellectual level as faulty and vile.
> 
> Rid of! No way, but once SOM has been stripped down to size, i.e.
> become the static intellectual level .... again ...  all is well. About the
> MOQ as an intellectual level, reforming intellect from within is
> untenable the reformation must be imposed on it. As if inorgany,
> biology and society can be "improved". Come to your senses Junior.
> 
> Bodvar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 17:23:58 -0400
> From: "ARLO J BENSINGER JR" <ajb102 at psu.edu>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> Message-ID: <1277587437l.688134l.0l at psu.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> 
> [Horse]
> Lovely - I missed that little gem. Cheers Krim. Is this an updated variation
> on
> the theme that the first person to mention the Nazi's has lost the argument.
> Seems like it.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Yeah, but what did you expect? Bo's understand of Pirsig has always been
> lacking in this regard, the SOL is about as unimportant and unimpressive a
> revision of Pirsig's works as I've seen here. The few who cling to it do so
> out
> of an array of needing to demonize that awful "interlict". And I do not expect
> that to change. So while Bo preaches to the three or four people who still
> take
> his revisions seriously, there is little to do or say but continue to insist
> that he take his argument to the only valid ground it has- as an alternative
> to
> Pirsig's MOQ. 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 7
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:26:28 -0600
> From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Thought of the day
> Message-ID: <SNT139-w2958F606309D8619E3747FDAC80 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
> 
> 
> Platt quoted from RefDesk.com
> 
> "My experience is what I agree to attend to." -- William James.   In other
> words, value is pre-experience. Now there's an idea worth further
> consideration -- the MOQ enhanced!
> 
> 
> dmb says:
> 
> Enhanced? I think the MOQ already says what James is saying here. In the next
> sentence James says, "Only those items which I notice shape my mind - without
> selective interest, experience is utter chaos." (Principles of Psychology,
> 1890). In other words, a thing that is not valued is not experienced. It
> remains unconscious, unnoticed. And here "experience" means what we notice,
> what we're consciously aware of and pay attention to. This is drawn from a
> much larger, richer, less conscious field of awareness.
> 
> It's like the difference between a flood light and a spot light.           
> _________________________________________________________________
> The New Busy think 9 to 5 is a cute idea. Combine multiple calendars with
> Hotmail. 
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?tile=multicalendar&ocid=PID2832
> 6::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_5
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 8
> Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 15:24:30 -0700
> From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] DQ: to define or undefine
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTin9HX1jSfA9N2hTY9cZj-_4SgFupj6KX7c3Mryv at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> 
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 9:08 AM, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says
> 
> 
> 
>> Static means stable, not forever frozen.
>> 
>> 
>   In a sense, its  highly dynamic: the seasons shift, the rivers to rise
> with the rains, the snow  melts from the mountains, the leaves  fall and
> then bud again.  Year in, year out the seasons repeat this predictable
> dance.  Is this dynamic or static?  I'd call that static.  Now when an
> asteroid hits the earth, and changes all the patterns, that's what I'd call
> dynamic.  Dynamic doesn't mean simply change, as dave points out, everything
> everywhere is a constant state of flux and change.  But dynamic means
> something different than the expected.  It's an intellectual definition of
> that which falls outside the boundaries of intellectual foresight and
> control.
> 
>  It all depends upon which frame of reference you choose.  Like Quantum
> Mechanics, Krimel.  You believe in QM, don't you?  What are you if you don't
> believe in QM, some kind of Nazi?
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> dmb says:
>> 
>> That's about right but it's also true that the romantic style is a style of
>> thought. He characterizes Plato and Aristotle as romantic and classic, for
>> example. The romantic style in not any less intellectual and so we're
>> talking about static patterns either way. That's why DQ and romantic quality
>> are not the same.
>> 
> 
> 
> John:
> 
> I  equate the romantic with the mythos and the  classic with the logos.
> The mythos ties in to our emotional romantic sensibility and the logos with
> our analytic and intellectual side of experience.  I certainly agree that DQ
> and romantic quality are not the same.  The normal definition of intellect,
> I see as more on that classic/logos side of human experience, which is why I
> don't like the label of "intellect" for the 4th level of being.
> 
> But other than that semantic quibble of the connotations of intellect, I
> agree with dave.
> 
> Which is a relief; I don't have to spend excessive time making my own point
> on this to Krimel.  I can just point here and go, "yeah."
> 
> 
> dmb:
> 
> 
> Thanks. This conversation seems for real. I sincerely appreciate that.
>> 
>> 
> 
> Everybody appreciates real conversation.  Its a quality experience.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Moq_Discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> 
> 
> End of Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 55, Issue 158
> ********************************************