[MD] Knowledge as MOQ's intellect

[David M]

Hi Bo

No argument with the below points.
Simply I'd add that science emerges from the S/O distinction,
along with naturalism and secularism, as its value and
benefit, largely in practical and political terms,
also giving us individual freedoms, taking society to
a new flourishing (and also new problems) beyond
tradition. The damge of SOM is the M, and MOQ tries
to heal this and avoid the M problems of SOM.
There is a danger that MOQ could fall back into SOM
as Matt K argues it sometimes does, but with care I think
it can tread this difficult path of being a metaphysics without
the problems of SOM. But in some ways it changes what we mean
by metaphysics. No reality/appearance distinction, no
quest for certainty.

Agreed

Ta
David M

> Hi David M.
> 
> 10 Dec. you said to me:
> 
>> SOM is the form intellect has developed from and with.
>> The S-O distinction intellectually divides experience-reality
>> into two.
> 
> Yes, I believe this is our common ground. I showed that Pirsig 
> saw "knowledge" as what rebelled against social value and 
> formed the next value level (the S/O aggregate, objective 
> knowledge/subjective superstition) By more twists and turns 
> Pirsig makes "knowledge" turn into "science" - exactlys as in 
> ZAMM where the first scientific attitude is spotted with Aristotle.     
> 
>> Via this division we try to understand reality-experience.
>> But in the end this division proves flawed. The distinction has split
>> qualities in an inconsistent way. 
> 
> SOM is flawed metaphysically, but the S/O distinction is the 
> highest and best static value thanks to its liberation from- and 
> control of the social level. Look to the cultures stuck there, the 
> muslim world). The S/O brought the enormous scientific and 
> social progress that characterizes the Western world. 
> 
> But as said  metaphysically the SOM is flawed and the equally 
> enormous progress of the MOQ is to rob it of its "M" and relegate 
> it to its proper place within MOQ's static hierarchy. In this 
> capacity it is not flawed at all, no more than the rest of the levels. 
> 
>> MOQ re-thinks this distinction and thinks with a new distinction DQ/SQ.
>> With DQ/SQ the misleading division between subjectivity and knowledge
>> (objective) can be healed. 
> 
> Agree!!
> 
>> You sound below as if there is not a problem with objective knowledge
>> and as if subjectivity has no knowledge and truth. All this is resolved
>> by MOQ (a new intellectual distinction that can shake off much of SOM) 
> 
> With the above reservations regarding SOM's role as a 
> metaphysics (as things really are) and its role as the 4th static 
> Quality level, we hopefully agree.
> 
> Bo 
> 
> 
> 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/
>