[MD] The MOQ Intellectual level Revisited

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ron 

1 Dec you wrote:

> You Bo, seem to think there is substantial meaning to be derived by
> retaining the meaning of metaphysics as reality, and in a way, you
> have a point about theory being the reality we live in, but this , in
> my opinion, must be packaged with the understanding that we may not
> know any sort of "ultimate" universal, foundational reality with any
> sort of absoluteness.....

Us not knowing "ultimate" universal, foundational reality with any sort 
of absoluteness....."  is SOM itself, beginning with Socrates' (objective) 
TRUTH which is distorted by (subjective) APPEARENCE, From this 
proto-type the S/O has dressed itself in ever more complex guises, but 
the basics is still the ineffable objective reality that we principally are 
shut off from..      

> ...... for indeed it is all relative and humans by understanding it,
> measure it and that which is measured, is limited. 

Here you contradict yourself. If all is relative our respective worlds are 
equally real or irreal. But "relativity" is SOM's legitimate child and has 
nothing to do with the MOQ which - firstly rejects the S/O as 
existence's fundament - and says that static quality reality has been 
enlarged by new layers  You too seem to have come to early out of 
kindergarten ;-)   

> The power of meaning lies in the method of explaination and
> explaination via value relationships has greater explanitory power
> than explaination via universal principles of form.

Wow, from where have you "cut and pasted" this learned-sounding 
nonsense?

> Ron adds: This is where it really gets interesting, the dangers of the
> use of  forms......

"Dangers of the use of form"? "Form" (the illusory part) versus 
"Substance" (the objective part) was Aristotle's version of of SOM 
where (according to Pirsig) we can see the outline of scientific 
understanding.     

> Forms seem eternal, they seem universal partly because
> they are created through agreement. Form is measure, it is limit.

Why repeat all this We already know Pirsig's point which is that the 
Greek thinkers were the midvifes of SOM 

> As Socrates stated, the good may be the first form. The one on which
> all others are predicated on. I believe RMP agrees to a point where he
> posits that all life understands this form. It must else it would'nt
> "be" (exist). I venture, this to be the Parmenidian "one" that
> Aristotle takes time to address with the intricacy of unity and plural,
> appearances and flux. Pirsig adds Dynamic and static. 

Take a break Professor Kulp, We know until exhaustion that ZAMM 
says that Plato "hijacked" GOOD (Aretê) to serve SOM's purpose. In 
MOQish it becomes that the intellectual level took over as the highest 
static good. 

Bodvar