[MD] Knowledge as MOQ's intellect

[MarshaV]

At 12:44 PM 12/18/2007, you wrote:
>Marsha:
>I understood Lila's soliloquy a little differently.  I think of her as
>stating that to name/define something is to kill it.  To make it static
>and kill off the dynamic aspects.  And in this sense, it is exactly why
>I do not like Bo's idea of creating a MOQ level.  To confine Quality, or
>DQ, to a level may make it static.  It's also the reason I don't like
>Ham's use of the words 'primary' and 'purpose'.  To my thinking Quality
>(DQ) is best left is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable, and for
>Bo's case, unconfined.
>
>Marsha,
>Agreed, cultural definitions of quality kill its dynamic aspect
>Especially when the cultural definitions are taken as a truth.
>
>The whole understanding hinges on the idea that culture creates
>The individual as much as the individual creates culture. One does not
>Exist without the other.
>Therefore A cultural paradigm is required for any understanding of an
>intellectual concept.
>There fore Bo is not defining Quality, he is pointing out that we
>Still view MoQ through SOM eyes no matter how much we try not to.
>Or tell ourselves we are not. By saying we truly view Moq as it is
>And dropping SOM we are actually commiting the same fallacy of
>Taking SOM as true.
>So it is best to realize that this is the condition we are in
>When viewing the MoQ and important we do not succumb to the same trap
>In understanding. Most of us realize this but putting our finger on it
>helps in understanding what others mean in this forum. And yes perhaps
>Some of us failed to notice this before. I think a large part of
>The conflict Ham has with MoQ is just this SPOV, Ham is well
>Steeped in traditional analytic philosophy and views MoQ concepts
> >From this perspective. Quality does not hold up for him because
>Outside of a cultural definition it vanishes. It loses all meaning.
>He loses it in the paradigm shift. I suspect by some of the comments
>Bo has made about mysticism leads me to believe that he also
>Doesn't clearly see this shift and the role it plays in understanding.
>-Ron

Greetings Ron,

I've been out all day, and even now have only a few minutes to respond.

I did not state that Bo was defining Quality.  I did state that he 
was wanting to confine Quality.  Once confined, Quality becomes 
available to everyone with a knife, from surgeon to butcher, to slice 
and dice, and it wouldn't be long before Quality was dressed up in 
trousers and a tie.

To stick to my point, I (a constellation of interrelated static 
patterns of value) hold the opinion that Quality should not be placed 
within a MOQ Level, but left indivisible, undefinable, unknowable, 
and _unconfined_.

I will continue to read Bo's posts with great interest.  And yours also.

Marsha