[MD] Food for Thought

[Case]

[Dan]
In the MOQ, the tangible is made up of inorganic and biological level 
patterns of value, while the intanglible are made up of social and 
intellectual patterns of value. What I was criticizing you for was fixating 
on a thing being one thing.

[Case]
Ideas and social patterns may not be exactly "tangible" but they certainly
have tangible results. If not what's the point"? In my view levels are
entirely metaphorical. That is the levels are properties of our individual
points of view more that the things in themselves. Christmas may be regarded
as a set of social level patterns of behavior. For some it is has great
religious significance, for others is organized activity that strengthens a
community. For others it is the most dynamic time of year for the purchase
and exchange of goods and services. It is a time of all sorts of rituals
from the theological to the economic. All I am not saying is that there is
nothing special about the four levels. Sometimes they work and are useful
other times they are irrelevant.

I do not think their metaphysical significance is all that significant.

[Dan]
I have to say I pretty much agree with dmb's posts. But I'm not double 
teaming you. If I'm not mistaken, it was you who wrote to me, not visa 
versa. But go ahead and think what you will...

....it looks like a Case of laziness from my point of view. At least I admit

to being lazy. And please stop whining.

[Case]
I was not whining about being double teamed. I think it is kind of
"special". I was merely saying that at times I tend to mix your positions
together. So lazy, Yes. Whiney, No.

[Dan]
This is only so from an everyday common sense sort of perspective, or from a

subject and object outlook on reality. As I noted to you previously, it 
would take going all the way to the beginning to "disabuse" you of this view

and even then I doubt anything I write would change your mind.

[Case]
Since I do not hold to a specifically subject-object point of view I
wouldn't know. I don't even know that I am locked into a common sense point
of view but I do think ideas should be expressed so as to make common sense.
It is you choice to respond and explain or not. Changing minds is much more
difficult task than exchanging points of view.

>Case replied to Dan:
>I am not sure specifically what it is we disagree about.

[Dan]
The MOQ for starters.

[Case]
Only to the extent that you claim that it is some kind of exclusively static
rendering of mysticism. 

[Dan]
The MOQ is a metaphysics, a way of ordering reality. The levels, while they 
are provisional, order reality in a better fashion than thinking in terms of

subjects and objects. If you mess with the interpretation of the levels I 
don't see how you can still call the result the MOQ.

[Case]
So they are provisional but we can't mess with them? Four levels of analysis
are better than two? You think the MoQ has a single interpretation? What
manner of hokum is this? 

[Dan]
You know what they say about the tao.

[Case]
Nope, I thought you weren't supposed to say much about it at all.

[Dan]
I would say it's order from which chaos emerges. Remember, in the MOQ ideas 
come first.

[Case]
I'm sorry I would have to start at the beginning to explain Chaos to you and
nothing I could say would change your mind anyway...

As for ideas coming first, how SOM is that? About half, I'd say. It is as
though you have resolved the problem of SOM by throwing out the objects.
What I see as the main problem with your interpretation of the MoQ is that
is 100% subjective. It is mystical to the extent that it explains how you
create your own happy version of Maya.

>[Case]
>It's potency lies not in a warm fuzzy feeling of goodness but in the growth

>and dispersal of complex relationships.

[Dan]
Partly. I think it could be better put as awareness of the growth and 
dispersal of complex relationships, however.

[Case]
Complex systems grow and disperse whether we are aware of them or not, aye,
there's the rub.

[Dan]
I haven't even the foggiest what "hard science" is. In fact, this last 
paragraph seems nothing more than gross generalization. How do you know any 
of this? I mean, at least Robert Pirsig named names and quoted quotes to 
support his thesis. All I see here is speculation.

[Case]
One view of science is that it enhances prediction and control. One could
say the more precisely a science is able to accomplish this the harder it
is. Physics and chemistry are hard sciences. Biology is working on it. The
social sciences are only able to do this in much more statistical way. One
can only speak of the probability that organisms will behave in a particular
way. We can only talk about influences not causes. If this is of interest to
you a Google search will provide lots of examples.

[Dan]
As I said before, it would take too much time and effort on my part to 
debunk your alternative views.

[Case]
Much as I enjoy a good debunking, I agree. It is Christmas Eve. We should
both be enjoying the company of our loved ones

>[Case]
>I really don't think the MoQ is ONLY about mystical monism or mysticism in 
>any form.

[Dan]
Who said it was?

[Case]
So why do you get your panties in a wad when I attempt to show how it can be
applied in other ways?

>[Case]
>I really don't think the MoQ is anti-theistic.

[Dan]
How can you say that? Can you offer any support for this point of view?

[Case]
Not right now but there is dmb's points to address in another post so if I
don't get to it be sure and remind me.

[Dan]
See. This is a real problem. Here I've been arguing that science and 
religion are in no way shape or form on the same footing -- that science 
(like the MOQ) is based on falsification. It would stand to reason that I am

identifying science and the MOQ as both being high quality intellectual 
patterns of values. So where on earth do you get the notion that I believe 
the MOQ to be New Age?

Oh. I get it. You're just lumping me together with someone else.

[Case]
Actually, most of my comments in this regard were directly aimed at Dave.
But I am curious in what way do you see the MoQ being based on or having
anything to do with falsification. How could the MoQ be falsified?

>[Case]
>If I left your name off it was an oversight, Buddha Boy. As I have stated
>many, many times I think the first cut of metaphysics into stasis and
>dynamics is a brilliant move. But mystifying the terms is a big step in the
>wrong direction.

[Dan]
I don't understand how anyone familar with the MOQ can make a statement like
this and I haven't a clue as to how I should go about debunking it.

[Case]
Again I was calling Dave, Buddha Boy as a term of endearment. But I seem to
recall Pirsig saying that Quality splits into static and dynamic.