[MD] What is the MOQ?

[skutvik at online.no]

Ham, Arlo mentioned

On 3 May you said:

> Sorry to hear about the demise of your PC.   I went through this
> grieving process twice within the past year, and am still trying to
> recover my documents and web pages.  And no, you don't have to
> manually shift to each new line; what you sent displays just fine.

Tanks for your sympathetic words, however I got the Pegasus Mail 
running again and could leave the Windows Mail to its own vices. 
Thanks also to Magnus for a private post about the problems. The 
computers and programs are now so stable that years may pass 
without any need to look into the "settings" and such and when 
something happens one feels lost.

However you and I slowly begin to understand the root of our 
disagreement. I saw your exchange with Arlo about the two equally 
obvious and mutually excluding statements "something existing before 
man" versus "man the one who understands that something existed 
before man" My assertion is that both are SOM-ish to the core, first to 
your side of the quandary which is pretty well laid out below. 
 
> I understand what you're saying, Bo.  But it ignores the fact that all
> knowledge is derived from experience and is proprietary to the
> 'knower'.  It suggests that intellection, like language and concepts,
> resides in some extracorporeal realm independent of man.  

Language is my favorite example to show the dead end of a "man the 
measure" postulate. I said that it's 100% valid because one may argue 
till one is blue in face yet it's impossible to avoid the fact that even the 
argument about language is conveyed by language. The fact that 
language belongs to "man" is equally solid as it is that this is only 
deeper into the blind alley. It's not until you postulate a Language or 
Man metaphysics with the same layout as the MOQ the wall at the end 
of the alley opens up.       

> And that simply is not true.  Why on earth do you want to eliminate the
> conscious mind of man?  Where would we be--culturally, socially,
> scientifically, morally--without individual awareness? 

... or a Metaphysics of Consciousness, or of Mind. What the 
innermost, deepest, essential reality is, isn't important. What counts is 
the Dynamic/Static distinction. Yet when this is said I must add that 
Quality is best because it give direction to the static evolution.     

> Indeed, where would our very existence be?  Even if you can't accept
> the universe as anthropcentric, such an epistemology allows no agent
> for value appreciation and the moral precepts that are so dear to
> Pirsig. It also makes human freedom a meaningless slogan.

So if your Essentialism is laid out along the dynamic/static split with the 
static essence levels of which the inorganic is the first and the 
intellectual the last I'm your man.  

> I respectfully suggest that you carefully think this ontology through
> before foisting it on the group as a cure for the MoQ's alleged
> paralysis.

The paralysis is due to the "Reality=Quality" postulate - with the MOQ 
an arbitrary theory - instead of the "Reality=MOQ" one. What is your 
essentials? 

Bo