[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Mel,

Yes, kinda the same ... just a matter for how we choose to name what
we experience (and hpw we choose to divide it up into the things we
name).

I tried that "just get comfortable with that fact" on Bo, but he still
wants to criticize the lack of "logic" in that, so I have turned my
attention to addressing the logical difficulty, but Bo has yet to
acknowledge that response (in the fine mess thread).

Regards
Ian

On Sat, Dec 6, 2008 at 8:45 AM, ml <mbtlehn at ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> 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/
>
> 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/
>