[MD] Overcoming the System

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ron

 28 Aug. you wrote:

> Socrates "obsession" was virtue, eudimona, living a good life. A
> life of Quality.

That he surely did, but in a MOQ context:

    Now Plato's hatred of the Sophists makes sense. He and 
    Socrates are defending the Immortal Principle of the 
    Cosmologists against what they consider to be the decadence 
    of the Sophists. Truth. Knowledge. That which is independent 
    of what anyone thinks about it. The ideal that Socrates died 
    for. The ideal that Greece alone possesses for the first time in 
    the history of the world. It is still a very fragile thing. It can 
    disappear completely. Plato abhors and damns the Sophists 
    without restraint, not because they are low and immoral 
    people...there are obviously much lower and more immoral 
    people in Greece he completely ignores. He damns them 
    because they threaten mankind's first beginning grasp of the 
    idea of truth. That's what it is all about.   

> And thats the whole point Bo, It's argueable one can literally
> transcend your intellect but you can transcend particular
> intellectual patterns.

Is it something in the American language that equalize the term 
"intellect" with everything that "crosses minds". As said umpteen
times my British dictionary defines it as the ability to distinguish
between whats objective and what's subjective. Exactly what the 4th.
level's value is. 

> One could say, through meditation and peyote experiences one
> "transcends" intellect, but my experience has been that it breaks
> intellect down into it's base componants revealing patterns like
> objectivism as  constructions.

> Umbilical chord?  rejecting objectivism is not throwing the baby out
> with the bath water it just means we are rejecting it's assumptions
> as what IS.

The 4th static level must be transcended for the MOQ to come of 
age, and that means a total break. If not the MOQ will remain an 
intellectual pattern, meaning a SOM appendix.  

> DQ/SQ is not what IS  just another way to understand
> Experience,  more inclusively, one that does not relegate value as
> subjective in an objective universe but makes value central to
> understanding all experience. 

OK, you may have the backing of Pirsig, but the MOQ is the 
Dynamic/Static split of Experience (=Quality), no other alternatives 
exists unless you postulate - like Pirsig - that the SOM is a "moq" .   

> this is MoQ's great explainitory power

> That value (Quality) creates the world we live in

> every last bit.

> you talk of reality as it were a DQ/SQ substance
> out there as the deeper split of subject/object

Nonsense!

> that static quality is the origin of s/o
> and SQ the spawn of DQ.

> Literally

> Objectively

> And when you use the term "subjectivist" pejorativly as you do
> in reference to the Pragmatists position you only prove this point.

Have I referred to the pragmatists of late? If it's the "radical" kind I 
may have said it was Pirsig's geatest blunder in associating the MOQ 
with James. His "pre-something/concepts" has nothing to do with the 
Phaedrus'  "Pre-intellectual/Intellectual".

I use both objectivist and subjectivist pejoratively.
 
 

Bodvar