[MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Mon Aug 31 09:02:12 PDT 2009

Marsha,
Do you consider Hinduism intellectual?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 11:51:09 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Bo,

I'm still with you.  The Intellectual Level is about objectifying abstract
symbols:

"Objectification is the process by which abstract concepts are treated as if
they were concrete things or physical objects. In this sense the term is
synonym to reification."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectification  

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: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:35 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Hi Ron 

30 Aug. 

I had said:

> > DMB entered back in the mid nineties shortly after the forming of the 
> > Lila Squad with an intense interest in Mythology as conveyed by Campbell
> > and a conviction of this fitting with MOQ's social level (which it does)
> > but he was  "seduced" by Paul Turner whose mission was to debunk the SOL
> > interpretation and after that ..... well without the right
> > interpretation the MOQ becomes a drag, nothing fits and it can't explain
> > or predict anything.

Ron:

> Many times, by many examples do we use to explain the benifits and the
> explanitory power of the Moq as we understand it per Pirsig, which you
> do not agree with even Pirsig himself. You however have yet to give
> ONE example of the explanitory power your SOL provides other than your
> say-so.

First "the way you understand it" is that SOM is one among many 
intellectual patterns, and the definition of the 4th. level is "the 
manipulation of symbols ...etc." Is that correct 

The MOQ postulates an principal  struggle between the lower and 
upper levels, that they mutually regard each other as "evil", biological 
life struggles to avoid death and "inorgany" does its best to prevent 
life. OK, why would manipulation of symbol be offensive to "society" 
and vice versa. This is completely illogical, while SOM (objectivity-
over-subjectivity) and social values are completely incompatible.  

Then very generally (because I don't have LILA with me here, but I 
will provide quotes if needed)  Pirsig says that every major conflict up 
through the (later) age have been varieties of the social- intellectual 
struggle and if so intellect must be the value of the S/O distinction 
(with emphasis on the "objective over subjective" part) there can't be 
other intellectual patterns or this would be invalid, then everything 
must have been a "civil war" within intellect.  

All intellectual pattern that Pirsig lists in LILA are based on the S/O 
(again the "objective over subjective" part). Free this and free that, 
independent this and independent that, all is about freeing everything 
from the social bonds by showing that these are subjective. It's more 
than plain that intellect must be the objective as different from 
subjective (the latter the pejorative term that intellect applies to 
everything social)

The Nazi vs Democracy conflict Pirsig sees as Social values' last 
stand against intellect and if so Intellect must be the value of the 
objective freedoms and independency  over what it saw as evil itself, 
namely the individual submission under society's demands for giving 
everything for the "cause". If not this would be a struggle between 
nazi "ideas" and democratic ditto  ... which is good SOM, but not 
MOQ.  

The present "Western Values" that the Muslims hate so much (but 
want the economical benefits of) is clearly Intellect in the shape of 
democracy - not merely elections but all its shores against despotism 
which is the curse of the Islamic culture. Any dictator are welcomed if 
only dedicated to islam, no "Christian" (intellectual) distinction 
between religion and state. THAT in fact  is the very "evil" they fight 
against with such ferocity ... and disregard of life, which is society's 
force, the individual is supposed to give its life freely to defend the 
"cause". 

> you can't even mount a convincing argue to Ham, the perfect subject
> for your aims.

I must first "smoke him out" and that is impossible. 

> one example

> except, a sesame street explaination of moving the "M" from SOM
> to the "M" of the MOQ.

> Big Bird would be proud

I don't understand your colloquialism, but now it's your turn to tell how 
your interpretation of the intellectual level explains things. 

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/