[MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Mon Aug 31 10:50:38 PDT 2009

Marsha,
I do'nt want to seem as if I'm pushing,
if you are into a conversation about the subject
I am most interested but I do not
want to seem pushy and piss you off
if you would like to discuss further
I am. are you? if not thats ok

just pissing away some free time here at work and thought this was a 
discussion I'm into pursueing.

-Ron

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:42:37 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Ron,

In my readings of Buddhism, the big obstacle to get over is always self and
objects.  

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:30 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

in other words reification, ok. and I agree to a point,
indo-european semetic languages have that sort of
morphology.

chinese and other pictographic languages do not.

so when we talk of the reification of languge or abstracts
it's no big deal to them. because they do not deal in abstract
symbols in that manner, they do not need to reify them.

In contrast, John Webb imagined that absence of morphology must constitute a
sort
of grand linguistic liberation, or rather the state of original freedom from
which all but
the Chinese have since fallen:
 "the Chinese are never put to that irksome vexation of searching out a
radix for the
derivation of any of their words, as generally all other nations are, but
the radix is
the word and the word is the radix . . . Besides they are not troubled with
variety of
Declensions, Conjugations, Numbers, Genders, Moods, Tenses and the like
grammatical
niceties, but are absolutely free from all such perplexing accidents, having
no other Rules in use than what the light of nature has dictated unto them;
whereby
their language is plain, easie and simple as 

natural speech ought to be.13"

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 1:18:03 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Ron,

I think the MoQ's Intellectual Level is about objectifying and manipulating
abstract symbols. 

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:59 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Bo,

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

-Marsha

Ron:
 curious about this, because this means the bulk of chinese philosophy
is not intellectual.
or on the intellectual level.

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

except for the school of 1000 names

Logicians
Main article: School of Names
The logicians (School of Names) were concerned with logic, 
paradoxes, names and actuality (similar to Confucian rectification of
names). 
The logician Hui Shi was a friendly rival to Zhuangzi, arguing against
Taoism 
in a light-hearted and humorous manner. Another logician, Gongsun Long, told

the famous When a White Horse is Not a Horse dialogue. This school did not 
thrive because the Chinese regarded sophistry and dialectic as impractical.

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:50:38 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Ron,

I do not have an opinion.

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:02 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

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/