[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[X Acto]

Hello Platt,

I think "being" a collection of patterns, of intersecting fields of force, 
is a fairly accurate and aesthetically pleasing concept. It can be interpreted
many meaningful ways.

The singular/pluralism paradox is an ancient one. Platos
"Parmenides" is a fine dialog on the subject.

When I read it, I came to the conclusion that it was
an argument of semantics, Pragmatically the singular
and the plural are one experience. The meaning lies
in the argument from the particular experience to
a universal understanding.

The particular experience dies, the universal understanding
is lasting. Universal ideals get passed from generation to generation
therefore are eternal and their craft is of the utmost concern.
The early Christian church fathers are one and the same as 
the ancient Greek philosophers and they crafted universal ideals
from Platos theory of forms.
The ideal of the soul is the ideal of the self. Which brings us back
to the paradox of how may the self be many yet one? how is it
dynamic yet static? How do we all understand a meaning yet not?
When the self is realized universally it becomes eternal, the particular
experience is ever changing composed of many, all in flux. 
It is the word, the logos the common understanding which 
is the fixed and everlasting life. We then have two selves
the fixed universal and the ever changing and perishable
particular experience. Pirsig states they are one static
experience.

It is of my opinion that the sum is greater than the parts
that the horse and the cart make three, that the father and the son
create the holy ghost. the spirit of the universal understanding.
that ideal being the good, Quality, Arete, excellence.
Conceptualizing the good and universalizing it
separated western civilisation from good.
Salvation comes from the marriage of the particular good
and the universal good. When dynamic and static are one
expereince and harmonize, it manifests as a true ideal of
Quality, the good.

The original christian movement was a Quality movement but it became
dominated by the universal good once again and once again western
civilazation became seperated.

So yes Platt, I think the universal ideal of the self IS larger and longer lasting
than the individual expereince but it is the union and harmonization
that completes us and give our lives a richer meaning.






 



________________________________
From: Platt Holden <plattholden at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 3:19:22 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.


Bo:
> The reason for Pirsig's saying that nothing but man responds to DQ is 
> I believe that he (correctly) regards the intellectual level as Q-
> evolution's last stage (leading edge) and that humankind's is it's sole 
> "inhabitant" here (not even all of those). The inorganic level was DQ's 
> first creation and what it immediately started to probe in an effort to 
> escape. The result was the biological level which became leading 
> edge and what "responded to DQ" .. and so on. The lower levels 
> workings are now "static responses" as I see it. Your insisting that the
> MOQ is - and will remain - an intellectual level is an example of 
> STATIC intellectual response. The thing now is to free DQ from its last 
> static creation - intellect - and let the Quality Evolution find its
> "final 
> form".  Here things kind of collapses - I admit that - but not only for
> the 
> SOL interpretation, one can't possibly envisage a new intellectual 
> pattern that contradicts the MOQ without the MOQ collapsing. OK as 
> always out on my mission. 

This is how I see it, too. Also, I don't think anyone, least of all Pirsig, 
would claim that the MOQ is the last word. At least I would hope that in 
10,000 years we would have moved on. 

Platt

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/