[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[ml]

Ian, 

I don't know if this helps, but by analogy
If an SOM-ist and a MOQ-ist are standing at
the beach, the SOM-ist says the earth's 
surface is either land or water.
While the MOQ-ist shrugs and sees the 
earth's crust as all land, some below sea level
some above and in all types and conditions of 
wetness regardless of whether the names is known
or the particulars yet seen. 

Yet both swim together in the same ocean and 
run side by side down the same beach before
sharing breakfast and arguing about it.

thanks--mel




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian Glendinning" <ian.glendinning at gmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 29, 2008 3:52 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.


> That's how I look at it Steve.
> 
> (1) seeing the MOQ as an intellectual pattern that is superior to the
> intellectual pattern known as SOM
> (2) as opposed to seeing all of intellect as SOM (IOW Pirsig's MOQ)
> (3) and the MOQ as a single pattern forming it's own new level (IOW Bo
> and Platt's revised SOLAQI MOQ)?
> 
> Though I have to say I see (1) a the Pirsigian MoQ since as I have
> said endlessly in this recent series of threads he never says anything
> close to (2) "all of intellect being SOM" IMHO. He was just ahead of
> his time in evolutionary explanations for (1).
> 
> (2) plus (3) are the Bo problem.
> 
> But, pragmatically, even though I prefer the simpler view of MoQ as a
> superior evolved intellectual pattern, I have no problem with MoQ as a
> (superior) pattern inside or outside the existing intellectual level,
> as I must have said to Bo a hundred times. (The only problem with the
> separate level / layer / thing view of the MoQ itself is this
> interminable objective definitional one ... but that's not something a
> pragmatist loses any sleep over. Which is your point.)
> 
> The practical consequences are that MoQ is a superior (participative,
> inclusional, involved, unified) "quality" way of thinking about the
> world than a detached, objective, dualist, SOMist view. End of.
> 
> A practical side-effcet is that MoQist thinkers are accused of being
> "unscientific" and "faithful" since they are unable to define their
> arguments (completely) in the standard objective, syllogistic,
> cause/effect terms that SOMist "received wisdom" would recognize.
> Something I've always called "Catch-22". A burden to bear. But it
> can't be solved by such argumentation, only by actions - actions
> including evolution of minds by reproduction over generations - like
> anything else in fact ;-)
> 
> Ian
> 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/