[MD] Moq_Discuss Digest, Vol 55, Issue 164
Joseph Maurer
jhmau at comcast.net
Mon Jun 28 11:05:27 PDT 2010
On 6/27/10 11:31 AM, "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. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV)
> 2. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics ( skutvik at online.no)
> 3. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (Andre Broersen)
> 4. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV)
> 5. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV)
> 6. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV)
> 7. Re: re dmb (david buchanan)
> 8. Re: The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics (MarshaV)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:39:08 -0400
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> Message-ID: <E79AA186-6D9B-487E-8435-92F8F08BA571 at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 12:48 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>
>> Platt to Andre in response to Marsha's ignorance:
>>
>> Yes, Andre. Let's see you demonstrate an intellectual pattern that isn't
>> based
>> on the subject/object division. I'm all tingly with anticipation.
>>
>> Andre:
>> Problem with this sort of thing coming from 'the Bo camp' is that
>> nothing I, or for that matter Mr. Pirsig, Dan, dmb, Arlo, even Matt,
>> John and Krimel says (and apologies to those I may have missed)
>> say will be accepted.
>
> Empty platitudes, but no evidence and no demonstration.
>
>
>
>> I suggest you take a long, very hard and critical look at the MOQ itself!
>
> The undermining presumption being I do not understand it. Sorry, but
> I am constantly considering the MoQ. The fact is I understand it differently
> than you.
>
>
>> ...but I can hear your self-satisfying objections coming from a mile away.
>> All of 'us' have at times tried to produce argument upon argument proving
>> the fallacy of the SOL interpretation backed up with statements and quotes
>> from Mr. Pirsig himself, James, Northrop, Anthony, Dewey you name it
>
> Argument by authority without any accompanying evidence? Baloney!
> And citing the SOL is a red-herring because I have never referenced the
> SOL because I do not fully understand it.
>
>
>> ...but these are dismissed as if they never existed. Mr. Pirsig has written
>> 'nonsense',
>> has 'lost nerve' has 'lost heart'(in other words he is a coward!). Bloody
>> hell! How
>> dare you!!!
>
> This is not a coherent anything... Seems like blathering. I how dare I what?
> I how dare think independently of your interpretations?
>
>
>> As I said in a previous post: you do not realise how smart Mr. Pirsig is.
>
> RMP has not supported your statements. He can easily write a post
> stating that you, Andre, are his spokesman.
>
>
>
>> He deserves our greatest respect ( yes Marsha, a social pattern of value is
>> not out of place ...even on an 'intellectual' forum such as this!)but what I
>> get from 'you lot' is nothing but contempt for the man. No Marsha ( I pick on
>> you because you mentioned these as counter arguments in the past) he is not
>> god, it is not papal bull, but there are limits to how far you can stretch
>> the interpretation of the MOQ. Mr. Pirsig has made these very clear in the LC
>> annotations.
>
> What you are avoiding is:
>
> Demonstrate an intellectual pattern that does not reify concepts, that does
> not
> create a self involved in analyzing such concepts, or does not represent the
> rules for such manipulation? You cannot do it, because the minute you've
> begun you have divided and formed an object and an analyzing self.
>
>
>>
>> I once again refer to the letter Mr. Pirsig wrote to Dough Renselle, to be
>> found in the archives.
>
> If it is the letter written to Bo in September 2000, I have read it.
>
>
>> I'll stop taking you guys and girls seriously and wholeheartedly support
>> Horse in giving Bodvar a yellow card!!!
>
> Do whatever pleases you. Bo can defend his position without
> mentioning the SOL. If you are allowed to state that you know
> RMP's MoQ correct interpretation, Bo should be allowed to state
> and defend the same sort of assumption.
>
> Or do you want to write a Papal Bull for the MoQ yourself?
>
>
>> Many of 'us' take a lot of time and energy to present Mr. Pirsig's views and
>> insights as truthfully as we can. But to simply be whisked away and nullified
>> in one short sentence is a very poor use of your intellectual patterns (as I
>> understand we all possess)on this forum.
>
> Many of us 'others' also take a lot of time and energy to present Mr.
> Pirsig's views and insights. Whether my posts are a sentence or
> 50 paragraphs does not negate the amount of time or energy I spend.
> Maybe like dmb you want to call me immoral because I do not agree with
> you? That's not a high quality attitude and only a weak attempt at social
> manipulation.
>
>
>> I will refrain from using the word 'shame'... instead I will simply refer to
>> your
>> attitude as very (SOL/SOM) blinkered... and it obstructs an understanding
>> of the MOQ. ( jee whiz...Bodvar: the SOL=the MOQ!...where does he get it
>> from!).
>
> Use the word 'shame' if you like. It just makes me laugh at you Mr.
> Preacherman.
> You are no one who I need, or should, consider an authority.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:43:37 +0200
> From: skutvik at online.no
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> Message-ID: <4C278DC9.12063.48F2505 at skutvik.online.no>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> Marsha and Andre.
>
> 27 June.:
>
> Andre previously:
>> Bodvar says: nonsense the MOQ = Reality; the wafer = the body of
>> christ. The wafer = my experience of christ. Good luck Bodvar.
>
>> Marsha:
>> Limp, limp, limp...
>
> Andre has a point. When on the social level - and on the religon
> pattern - the wafer IS the body of Christ, while on the intellectual level
> it is an objective piece of bread imposed with subjective symbolic
> quality . This reflects Christendom's migration from an all-social
> pattern to an intellect-influenced one. I kind of feel sorry for
> Christendom because from intellect's S/O view it just looks like a slow
> succumbing to secularism while Islam stands out like much a more
> "brave" faith, what makes some fools convert (at least in this country)
> taking on some Arabic-sounding middle name and donning the hijab
> (head scarf) *) see footnote
>
> In the other words, when each level was "leading edge" it was
> REALITY - no symbolism. Once biology's dog-eat-dog morality was
> the highest and best, then came the social development where the
> various mythologies soon formed and the afterlife in Valhalla or among
> the Ancestors was no symbolic something it, it was REALITY itself.
> Then the intellectual development and the conviction that we only have
> subjective access to the objective world and now the intellect-
> interpreters of the MOQ are dead sure of it being another subjective
> theoretical - now called "static" - interpretation of an objective - now
> called "Quality" - reality.
>
> What's for sure is that the Quality Reality will have as many facets as
> SOM had and the example of the wafer as Christ's body on the social
> level and as mere matter (with symbolic quality) on the intellectual -
> i.e. all levels having had their hey-day as top notch and as such what
> defines reality - is just one among an infinite number of ways to see it.
> Looking back; After having entered the intellectual reality the effected
> mankind were still social beings, but their societies were fundamentally
> changed by their knowing the higher context and - likewise - after
> having entered the Quality Reality we will still be intellectual beings but
> that level will be fundamentally altered by the knowledge. But alas this
> will be a long haul, the majority of this discussion seems hell bent on
> the intellectual, symbolic MOQ,
>
> Bodvar
>
>
> *) This is another example of MOQ's explanatory power, but also an
> example that t it must be SOL-interpreted to achieve that power.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 19:45:52 +0200
> From: Andre Broersen <andrebroersen at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> Message-ID: <4C278E50.8070808 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Marsha to John about the challenge to Andre:
>
> John:
>
> Zen and Art and sometimes Motorcycle Maintenance.
>
> Marsha:
>
> I've never made sense to your understanding of the levels
> which seem unique to you. Motorcycle maintenance requires,
> more than anything else, forgetting intellectual patterns and
> using mindfulness. But I've never performed motorcycle
> maintenance; maybe as Dan.
>
> Andre:
> Point proven... see John? You come up with an intellectual pattern that points
> to the non S/O pattern and Marsha is lost. Motorcycle maintenance requires
> intellectual patterns AND the code of art.
>
> PS; the cycle you are working on is you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:46:38 -0400
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> Message-ID: <A6F39E3C-42A8-406E-867E-0CDF013B4688 at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>
>> Marsha to Andre:
>>
>> There is value in rationality and the scientific processes. But if you
>> want DQ and a higher morality follow RMP's pointing:...
>>
>> Andre:
>> Yes Marsha. I understand! So what are you telling me? (Or rather,
>> since I am not convinced you are talking to me but continue your
>> soliloquize): what are you trying to convince yourself of?
>
> I suggest you take a long, very hard and critical look at the MOQ itself to
> figure it out what RMP meant by:
>
> While sustaining biological and social patterns
> Kill all intellectual patterns.
> Kill them completely
> And then follow Dynamic Quality
> And morality will be served.
> (LILA, Chapter 32)
>
> Notice he didn't say improve or expand intellectual patterns to serve
> morality.
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:49:57 -0400
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> Message-ID: <A34CC0D4-49C8-457E-91B0-D77CF131D81E at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Andre Broersen wrote:
>
>> Marsha to John about the challenge to Andre:
>>
>> John:
>>
>> Zen and Art and sometimes Motorcycle Maintenance.
>>
>> Marsha:
>>
>> I've never made sense to your understanding of the levels
>> which seem unique to you. Motorcycle maintenance requires,
>> more than anything else, forgetting intellectual patterns and
>> using mindfulness. But I've never performed motorcycle
>> maintenance; maybe as Dan.
>>
>> Andre:
>> Point proven... see John? You come up with an intellectual pattern
>> that points to the non S/O pattern and Marsha is lost. Motorcycle
>> maintenance requires intellectual patterns AND the code of art.
>
>
> John has talked of defining the fourth level
> as the Philosophical Level which would seem
> to be a major change.
>
>
>> PS; the cycle you are working on is you.
>
> So why do you seen to get off on working on
> others?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:56:46 -0400
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> Message-ID: <6C7A0879-457E-4954-8572-1D4576BC7F55 at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
> Bo,
>
> Quality(unpatterned experience/patterned experience)!
>
> To associate your statements with a symbol of the Catholic
> transubstantiation was I thought a limp attempt to discredit
> you.
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 27, 2010, at 1:43 PM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
>
>> Marsha and Andre.
>>
>> 27 June.:
>>
>> Andre previously:
>>> Bodvar says: nonsense the MOQ = Reality; the wafer = the body of
>>> christ. The wafer = my experience of christ. Good luck Bodvar.
>>
>>> Marsha:
>>> Limp, limp, limp...
>>
>> Andre has a point. When on the social level - and on the religon
>> pattern - the wafer IS the body of Christ, while on the intellectual level
>> it is an objective piece of bread imposed with subjective symbolic
>> quality . This reflects Christendom's migration from an all-social
>> pattern to an intellect-influenced one. I kind of feel sorry for
>> Christendom because from intellect's S/O view it just looks like a slow
>> succumbing to secularism while Islam stands out like much a more
>> "brave" faith, what makes some fools convert (at least in this country)
>> taking on some Arabic-sounding middle name and donning the hijab
>> (head scarf) *) see footnote
>>
>> In the other words, when each level was "leading edge" it was
>> REALITY - no symbolism. Once biology's dog-eat-dog morality was
>> the highest and best, then came the social development where the
>> various mythologies soon formed and the afterlife in Valhalla or among
>> the Ancestors was no symbolic something it, it was REALITY itself.
>> Then the intellectual development and the conviction that we only have
>> subjective access to the objective world and now the intellect-
>> interpreters of the MOQ are dead sure of it being another subjective
>> theoretical - now called "static" - interpretation of an objective - now
>> called "Quality" - reality.
>>
>> What's for sure is that the Quality Reality will have as many facets as
>> SOM had and the example of the wafer as Christ's body on the social
>> level and as mere matter (with symbolic quality) on the intellectual -
>> i.e. all levels having had their hey-day as top notch and as such what
>> defines reality - is just one among an infinite number of ways to see it.
>> Looking back; After having entered the intellectual reality the effected
>> mankind were still social beings, but their societies were fundamentally
>> changed by their knowing the higher context and - likewise - after
>> having entered the Quality Reality we will still be intellectual beings but
>> that level will be fundamentally altered by the knowledge. But alas this
>> will be a long haul, the majority of this discussion seems hell bent on
>> the intellectual, symbolic MOQ,
>>
>> Bodvar
>>
>>
>> *) This is another example of MOQ's explanatory power, but also an
>> example that t it must be SOL-interpreted to achieve that power.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:12:46 -0600
> From: david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
> To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
> Subject: Re: [MD] re dmb
> Message-ID: <SNT139-w571AE889380204788C8046DAC90 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Yes, Adrie, I think that's right. A "thing" that has no value is not noticed
> and so it does not exist. There is a poetic notion in the East that says
> things come into existence when we name them. Same idea, I think.
>
>
>
>> From: kintziger_karaca at hotmail.com
>> To: moq_discuss at lists.moqtalk.org
>> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 00:58:39 +0200
>> Subject: [MD] re dmb
>>
>> greetings list
>>
>> quote dmb
>> "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.
>>
>> this looks very similar with the moqprinciple, that if and when something is
>> outside observable reality, it is non-reality or non-existent, do i see this
>> correct , DMB
>>
>> Adrie
>> 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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Hotmail is redefining busy with tools for the New Busy. Get more from your
> inbox.
> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:
> en-US:WM_HMP:042010_2
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:23:30 -0400
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics
> Message-ID: <8F308DB2-8B60-4646-880C-AD3818492FFB at att.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> ANDRE,
>
> As far as I know intellectual patterns are as:
>
> Intellectual Static Patterns of Value are reified concepts and the rules
> for their rational analysis and manipulation. Intellectual patterns create
> false boundaries, giving the illusion of independence, or 'thingness'.
> The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level where the subjective
> is supposedly stripped from the experience.
>
> And I have seen no evidence to the contrary.
>
> Have you presented an intellectual pattern that transcends a
> subject/object representation of reality, excluding art which may use
> intellectual patterns but also makes use of inorganic, biological and
> social patterns and often goes beyond.
>
>
> Where is YOUR evidence and demonstration, Andre?
>
> Let's see YOU demonstrate an intellectual pattern that does not reify
> concepts, that does not create a self involved in analyzing such concepts,
> or does not represent the rules for such manipulation?
>
> You cannot present and demonstrate such a pattern, because the minute
> you've begun you have divided and formed an object and an analyzing self.
> Dont' use John as an excuse. You present something.
>
> Not art, because RMP has stated that art includes all the levels.
>
> Not motorcycle maintenance because, while such a process requires
> intelligence, it is not a intellectual pattern. More important to
> motorcycle maintenance would be great attention to the task at hand.
>
> Not Zen because Zen represents long hours of meditation which
> is a non-intellectual process.
>
> Come on Andre...
>
>
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 164
> ********************************************
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list