[MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

[MarshaV]

Hi,

I'd like to ask what is this 'human being'?  Is it just a cleaned up
word-version of a 'self'?  I thought it was static patterns of value had
Lila, not Lila had static patterns of value?  I'm confused.


Marsha







-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of
skutvik at online.no
Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 11:52 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Philosophy and Philosophology

Ham  (Andre, I will address you in a separate post)

6 Aug.

I had written: 
> > Sorry, "depth" was a miss, it was supposed to say ".. according to
> > the level in question". Maybe it makes your comment irrelevant, yet
> > I kind of agree, the Quality as universal is not MOQ's "axiom",
> > rather the Dynamic/Static division. SOM does not postulate reality
> > to BE anything - before the S/O - so saying it is Quality means
> > nothing. But Quality gives direction to existence, hence DQ/SQ.

Our "marriage" has its ups and downs, one moment you seem to 
understand (accepting is another thing) but then it's back to square 
one again.  

> In ZAMM Pirsig says that "Quality is the primary empirical reality of
> the world."

Look. Phaedrus was oppressed by the paradoxes the mind/matter 
dualism generated, this "generated" his own Quality epiphany. Upon 
pestering his colleagues with his talk about Quality they confronted 
him with the  question if it was subjective or objective. He rejected 
both, but immediately upon that a Quality metaphysics forced its way 
forward, hence the first "moq" where the mind/matter dualism were 
Quality's first fall-out. (I trust you to "translate" the romantic/classic 
into the final MOQ's lingo, and also that the mind/matter (SOM 
became the last of four Q fall-outs) You will see from this that the 
MOQ is the Dynamic/Static dualism, it being a Q dualism means less, 
as said SOM does not say it's a division of anything at all.       

> I take his use of "the world" to mean reality.  If quality is the
> primary reality, and it equates to Morality, then the quality of
> morality is not stained.  For a Universal Good to include evil, pain,
> and dysfrunction is self-contradictory.  Since these immoral conditions
> exist in the universe, which is experienced as a balance of goodness
> and badness, Quality (Morality) cannot be universal. 

This objection may stem from Pirsig's (and the various "dud's") 
concentration on Quality and ignoring the Dynamic/Static QUALITY. 
It's the very essence of the MOQ that goodness increases with every 
level and that the upper regards the lower as "no good" and the lower 
not recognizing any upper, but regarding it as polluting of own value.

> Where, then, do these "negatives" come from?  Are we to conclude, as
> the biblical scribes did, that evil is the work of the Devil and that
> all men are born sinners?    

Negative arises from the level in question. Biological pain hurts 
because no organism of any complexity could not survive without it. 
So does killing of other organisms for food, but to the biological level 
these things aren't "evil". Evil was introduced with the social level 
when also morals arose (knowledge of good and bad as the "fall" 
myth calls it) Humans looking upon the biological level's "jungle law" 
as a boiling pot of sheer brutality and insufferable pain.  

Biblical scribes (Semitic type religion = social patterns) Here's a 
typical example of the inter-level struggle. As said, social value does 
not know any intellectual value but regards it as "polluting" of own 
value and as Muslims are the most zealous they will serve as 
examples. They regard "western values" (intellect) i.e. democracy, 
woman's lib, independent judicial systems. free press ... etc. as a 
danger to the holy order instigated by God via the prophet and this 
present-day insurgency is a result. 

Intellect does no more know the "level" system (the MOQ)  than 
society, but regards the religious dominated cultures as backward and 
can't help but press on trying to bring them up to our high standard .... 
and will win out in the long run    

> Or, is it your interpretation that the "intellectual division of DQ/SQ"
> creates it? 

OK you see, the above was superfluous ;-) Except the DQ/SQ it not 
"intellectual division" this is MOQ's division!!! 

> What "proves the superiority of DQ to S/O" except for our preference
> of it? How is man, a finite and imperfect being of limited wisdom, to
> know for a certainty that Goodness is better than Badness?   Perhaps
> evil serves a cosmic purpose.  Perhaps experiencing pain and disease
> has an "instructional" value that we are unaware of. 

Phew, back to square one. As I said the DQ/SQ division is a postulate 
- an axiom - nothing can prove it except the better (non-paradoxical) 
existence it creates. Good and evil is a result of the level 
arrangement. The fact that "pain hurts" needs no consideration and 
philosophical deliberations.  

> Also, having studied biology, I'm curious to know what evidence you
> have for asserting that simpler life forms are "more resilient" than
> complex mammals.  (I've seen no scientific support for it.) 

A bacteria does not "get sick" or die (except when yeast bacteria 
depleting all sugar supply and dies) they are indestructible. This 
resilience diminishes as complexity increases. The mammal 
organism is prone to all kinds of illnesses and sensitive to wounds. 
Need I say more.

> You and Pirsig would exclude human beings from the MoQ, giving
> metaphysical credence only to his LANGUAGE?!  You suggest that before
> thoughts were conveyed in language, there were no societies and
> (according to your logic) no human beings, either.  Come to your
> senses, Bo.  What kind of philosophy is that?

To include  the human being, its mind, its thinking and/or its language 
in any metaphysics, for instance  "this only concerns the human 
experience because it is said by a human being"  is sheer folly 
because it bounces back. And Pirsig originally saw this, but then for 
some inexplicable reason  started on the "idea (a human mind 
product) creating objects ...etc. in "Lila's Child". I really hope YOU see 
this point.   

> Rejecting S/O duality is not only vain, it's illogical.  But not quite
> so illogical as the ontology that is supposed to replace it.  If, as I
> maintain, quality and value are subjective appraisals of experience,
> their existence is dependent on human sensibility.  In other words,
> value cannot be the primary reality; it must be derived from some more
> fundamental source (unnamed in the MoQ).  Need I remind you that
> Essence is the metaphysical foundation of Essentialism?

Including/excluding the human being is vain, therefore it's no issue. 
I'm  perfectly willing to call it a Metaphysics of Essence: Dynamic 
Essence/Static Essence and the four static E -levels of which the 
upper (intellectual essence) is the S/O split. I'm not adamant what 
reality IS. I may be green cheese for all I care, it's the Dynamic/Static 
- and static intellect as SOM - that counts  

I leave it here

Bodvar








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/