[MD] Re-inventing the wheel.

[David M]

Hi Bo

I have a question. If we see the 4th level as about the
emergence of the S/O divide, how do we see the social
level? Is the social level about human common life
before the S/O divide, so that it is about religion
and myth and social authority prior to the emergence
of S/O divide dependent forms such as individuals,
intellectuals, etc?

David M



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <skutvik at online.no>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2007 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Re-inventing the wheel.


> Hi SA
> 
> On 27 Jan. you said:
> 
>> Ah, you meant there is an actual diagram.  It's
>> been some time since I read ZMM and Lila.  I looked it
>> up.  I see the diagram now, and then I read further in
>> the chapter about classical quality being all
>> manifestations and romantic quality is
>> non-manifestations.  
> 
> Right, and don't you see dynamic/static "hidden" in the  
> romantic/classic?  Also non-manifestations/manifestations and 
> some other variants. Fluid/frozen and ocean/wave for example.    
> 
>> Classical quality can be called
>> different names such as subjects and objects.  
> 
> Not different names in an arbitrary sense, but all offshoots of the 
> S/O root: Mind/matter, abstract/concrete, mental/corporeal, 
> language/what language is about, analogies/what's analogized, 
> symbols/what's symbolized and many more.     
> 
>> I've
>> never thrown out S and O, but you could also call
>> these manifestations.  
> 
> No "throwing out" of the S/O divide is required, it's intellect's 
> value. Regarding Ss - AND- Os as separate entities (see below)   
> 
>> I'm not stuck on the divide. 
>> Manifestations is S and O with no divide.  Notice
>> manifestations is another word used by Pirsig in the
>> same exact chapter with the diagrams.
> 
> No, but you seem stuck in S and O as manifestation and that was 
> valid at the ZMM stage, but the MOQ postulates a static level 
> hierarchy where the "manifestations" have become static 
> patterns. But thanks for taking the trouble of looking this up.      
> 
>>  Rocks are an analogy of dq. Wave is part of the
>> ocean.  Static is NOT dynamic!  It's all quality.   
> 
> I can't see the idea of a DQ/Analogy metaphysics when we have 
> the DQ/SQ one. We all know and accept that the static patterns 
> are dynamic deep down, that's the very idea. 
> 
>> I said human beings can CHAT about rocks.  You
>> could focus on the word beings too if you wanted.  Not
>> quite sure why your focused on the chatting part when
>> I had a full sentence going.  Humans only chat about
>> rocks as far as I know.  Maybe other animals do, I'm
>> not sure.  That's all I was saying.
> 
> When someone says like you did: 
> 
>> > > Only human beings can chat about ultimate reality on this planet, as
>> > > far as I know. 
> 
> I thought our philosophical talk was more than chat and that you 
> meant something like: "Things only exist for us" or " in our 
> language" or something to that effect, but I'm happy that this 
> meant nothing.  
> 
>>  I assume quality introduced human beings.
> 
> That's d...  right!!!!
> 
>> Well, I don't hear chipmunks chatting about the
>> MoQ, but maybe they do.  I did say I wasn't quite
>> sure.  
> 
> See, now you are at it again. You seem to see language, 
> regardless of content as "intellectual". Chipmunks not intellectual 
> because they don't have language. OK you have your "maybe" 
> and "I didn't say" safe exits ;-)      
> 
>>  How are objects intellect, all in YOUR head. 
>> There not all in my head.  As to this divide, isn't
>> manifestations beyond this divide.  Static quality is
>> one word covering everything without a divide.  Not
>> sure why this divide is a must.
> 
> Back to your objects AND subjects hang-up. After SOM's 
> subject/object divide was replaced by the DQ/SQ one the 
> question occurred: How to incorporate the S/O (SOM minus its 
> former  "M") inside the MOQ. Pirsig's method is somewhat like 
> yous in that inorganic+biological  patterns are OBJECTS and 
> social+intellectual are SUBJECTS. This doesn't work: Life isn't 
> objective and a society isn't subjective (plus many more 
> objections) The only way is the SOL: The 4th static level is the 
> S/O divide. 
> 
> IMO you seem stuck in the 4th. level=mind ("In your head" is 
> another way of saying "in your mind", no?) but because the 
> mind/matter (along with all S/Os) is gone as REAL, there are no 
> "objects" that may reside in heads ... and no "heads" meaning 
> mind.       
> 
>> Oh, a some ego, too.  A little chest pounding
>> maybe, I see.  
> 
> I'm not exempt from social value ;-) 
> 
>> Yet, I feel your not understanding me.  So, we can
>> keep chattin' if you want.
> 
> Re. non-understanding it's reciprocal, but I'm convinced that we 
> are "chatting" about the most important issue there is. So I'll not 
> be the one to give up.      
> 
> 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/
>