[MD] Ham & swiss cheese

[Joseph Maurer]

On 27 February 2006 10:54 AM Scott writes to Ian:

<snip>

[Scott] The MOQ uses a dynamic/static distinction. I also find great value 
in this
distinction, but treat it differently than the MOQ does. The MOQ privileges
DQ over SQ, seeing SQ as being "in the wake of" DQ. I see the dynamic and 
the static as a contradictory identity, or to put it in tetralemma terms:
one can't say of any experience that it is dynamic, one can't say it is
static, one can't say it is both dynamic and static, and one can't say it is
neither dynamic nor static.

In terms of morality, the MOQ holds that the intellectual trumps the social,
and that DQ trumps the intellectual. I agree with the first, but not the
second, since for me the intellectual is (one word for) the dynamic/static
contradictory identity. Now this means that all levels are the playing out
of intellect. So what makes the fourth level different is that with the
fourth level, DQ is human agency. We can now consciously reflect on the
social, and so consciously change it.


Hi Scott and Ian,

IMO using Bo's work with SOL and making S the evolution of consciousness, 
and O cosmic or mechanical evolution, I conclude that the MOQ proposes a 
conscious Quality and a mechanical Quality. I interpret Pirsig's anti-theism 
emphasizing good over God, as his awareness of the conscious-mechanical 
difference.

Applying a law of shock or intervals, the law of seven, to evolution or 
morality, would indicate that mechanical evolution only progresses to Sol. A 
full octave of conscious evolution, enlightenment, contains a higher social, 
and higher intellectual levels. Mechanical evolution cannot pass the Mi-Fa 
interval so that Fa Social and Sol intellectual levels occur only with the 
shock of a present atmosphere. The second shock from the law of three, a law 
of consciousness outside of mechanical evolution, occurs between Sol and La 
to carry consciousness through La, Ti, higher social, higher intellectual 
levels.

Joe Maurer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885 at localnet.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2006 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Ham & swiss cheese


> Ian,
>
> Ian said:
> Scott, I'm still struggling to get to the reality of our differences,
> but his view still seems quite un-MoQ-ish to me.
>
> Scott:
> Simple. You're a physicalist, and I'm (to coin a word) a semiosist. You
> think that semiosis is something that evolved out of physical processes,
> while I think that physical processes are a form of semiosis.
>
> To put it in contradistinction to the MOQ (where, using Arlo's categories, 
> I
> started out in this forum thinking of myself as an "extender" or modifier,
> but have had to realize that I am a "dissenter"):
>
> The MOQ says that Quality is basic. I agree, but since as I see it, one
> doesn't have Quality without Consciousness and Intellect, then those as 
> well
> are basic (and not three bases, but three ways -- and there are more -- of
> naming the basis). Because I include Intellect, I obviously disagree with
> the MOQ on its handling of intellect (as limited to the fourth level of
> SQ -- I agree that there is a fourth level that is intellect, but that 
> there
> is also Dynamic Intellect, which is the same thing as DQ. So the fourth
> level starts when DQ/DI became conscious in humans, so to speak).
>
> The MOQ uses a dynamic/static distinction. I also find great value in this
> distinction, but treat it differently than the MOQ does. The MOQ 
> privileges
> DQ over SQ, seeing SQ as being "in the wake of" DQ. I see the dynamic and
> the static as a contradictory identity, or to put it in tetralemma terms:
> one can't say of any experience that it is dynamic, one can't say it is
> static, one can't say it is both dynamic and static, and one can't say it 
> is
> neither dynamic nor static.
>
> In terms of morality, the MOQ holds that the intellectual trumps the 
> social,
> and that DQ trumps the intellectual. I agree with the first, but not the
> second, since for me the intellectual is (one word for) the dynamic/static
> contradictory identity. Now this means that all levels are the playing out
> of intellect. So what makes the fourth level different is that with the
> fourth level, DQ is human agency. We can now consciously reflect on the
> social, and so consciously change it.
>
> - Scott
>
> 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/
>