[MD] CO2 and Climate.
skutvik at online.no
skutvik at online.no
Tue Dec 15 00:28:11 PST 2009
Hi Mark
13 Dec.you wrote :
> I have read Pirsig, in case you were wondering. My interpretation
> is different from yours. If this means that I haven't read it in
> the "right" way, then I apologize to you. Perhaps you believe that
> the definitions of Quality are all done and wrapped in a nice little
> package. If this is the case, then you are missing out on the whole
> dynamic nature of this metaphysics. ...........
OK, you have read Pirsig. Good. Yes I do believe that the MOQ wraps
the Quality Reality , I don't know how many times this issue must be
chewed on: The MOQ says that Quality's dynamic aspect is
indefinable and that the static ditto is laid out the known way. If this
violates Quality there is a super-metaphysics - a Quality/MOQ one -
and if THAT ...etc. another super-duper metaphysics ...and another,
and another "ad infinitum".
> ... If you think you can define things as such, then you are missing
> out on the whole nature of subject/object reality.
The static intellectual level's science does nothing BUT define things.
> You describe
> Quality as an object, which perhaps means that you should go back and
> read Pirsig again.
That's always a good thing do do, but after more than ten years of
discussion I think I have a firm grasp of the MOQ .... what Quality is
outside the MOQ I don't know.
> You were the one who described intellect as that which
> senses SOM, not SOM itself. If you want to correct your definition,
> please do so.
Can't believe I have described "intellect as that which senses SOM".
Intellect IS the subject/object distinction .. or aggregate. Full stop.
> If I believe that I am everything, where is the object? If I believe
> that I am not anything, where is the subject? Release from SOM has
> been taught for thousands of years, why do you claim it is new?
About release from SOM is an interesting point. As I understand Pirsig
his claim is that the Oriental culture did have its "intellectual stage" with
the Upanishads period (this following the "social" Veda one) but that it
did not stick - and develop into SOM like it did in the Western world -
before going on to a Quality-like insight (manifest as
Buddhism/Taoism) This made the western SOM an infinitely tougher
obstacle than the Eastern and makes the MOQ a more concise
metaphysics than the woolly Eastern philosophy.
> Perhaps you have only read Pirsig and nothing
> else. This seems to be the case, the way you describe the history
> of philosophy. Perhaps one requirement for addressing this forum is
> to have a little knowledge of metaphysics.
I have the impression that I scoured all libraries' "Philosophy" shelves
in search for the solution of the Mind/Matter monster (I did not know
any SOM of course) in my "Sturm und Drang" years before I found it in
an inconspicuous pocket book in 1978
> How is interaction inorganic? Perhaps in order to participate
> in this forum one should at least know what the definitions of the
> words used are. Inorganic, are you serious? Do you know what that
> means?
OK, the "interaction" phrase (referring to inorganic value) was more for
the rhyme, I don't know exactly what that level "does" but from
intellect's physics is looks very much like interaction, but please
correct me.
> If by intellect, you mean reason, then you really do not know what
> Quality is. Such intellect is an amalgamation of the five senses
> interpreted though a processing center called the brain. It's that
> simple, it is a computer. Some people have faster processors than
> others and are considered of high intellect. Reason is the
> extrapolation of a subset of assumptions into another assumption, it
> has nothing to do with Quality. I can reason that if I plant a
> seed, a tree will grow. Where is the Quality there? I can reason
> that I see different systems that I postulate exist at different
> levels, where is the Quality there?
I have claimed that we must not confuse INTELLIGENCE with MOQ'a
intellectual level. Intelligence is very much a computer that can be
programmed with any level's program and then we think accordingly.
Right now I strive to reprogram my own feeble intelligence with MOQ's
program (can be bought at www. ... :-)
> Explain to me how the Value of MoQ is better than
> the value of any other metaphysics, and I will show you how
> you are completely stuck in SOM. Value is relational.
This post has been an effort.
> No, my friend, you are definitely drowning in SOM. The subject is
> Pirsig, the object is understanding. It will take a while before
> you manage to escape from that. I would go back to the basics, and
> begin again.
;-)
Bodvar
>
> Best of luck,
> Mark
>
> On Dec 13, 2009, at 9:03:08 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> From: skutvik at online.no
> Subject: Re: [MD] CO2 and Climate.
> Date: December 13, 2009 9:03:08 AM PST
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Hi Mark
>
> 12 Dec. u wrote:
>
> > Thanks for the explanation. Now I see what you are describing
> > "the subject that observes the objective world". OK, I'm with
> > you. This has been called a number of things, I prefer the term
> > Atman.
>
> You are not with me at all, the subject/object distinction is SOM,
> not any "Atman". I asked if you are have read any of Pirsig's
> works, you didn't answer something I take as a "no" and it shows.
>
> > Yes, the subject, which is outside the brain's logic. The brain
> > is the ego, in my definition. The Ego is the hardware through
> > which the subject experiences the objective world, the brain is
> > also part of the objective world. Traditionally, "intellect"
> > means something else, but I'm fine with this clarification, I will
> > read your posts accordingly.
>
> The subject isn't merely outside the brain's logic, it's the
> Subject/Object distinction as reality's fundament which creates a
> host of paradoxes (=violations of any and all kind of logic)
>
> Hadn't it been for this below I would have written you off as a
> "Ham" case.
>
> > My point is that we have lost the descriptive emotional basis for
> > classifying the world around us. The world has become dead and
> > there is no animism.
>
> As you surely haven't noticed I ascribe an "expression" to each
> level:
>
> Interaction (inorganic) Sensation (biology) Emotion(society) Reason
> (intellect)
>
> Further, what Phaedrus of ZAMM saw as SOM ousting Quality (Aretê)
> was intellect taking off from its social parent ...on a purpose of
> its own. You are right that this looks as ourselves having lost
> touch with "the emotional description of the world" and what the
> present Social Level focussed culture - the "Semitic" (Jews and
> Muslims) - fights to maintain.
>
> And - if you will open a small crack for the MOQ - the reason that
> Intellect looks "dead, without animism" is its position as reality
> itself (its SOM capacity) once its MOQ context - as the S/O
> distinction - is realized it's a great value, the highest and best
> level.
>
> > I do not believe we are any smarter, we are just going
> > through a phase.
>
> You are right, our brain's computation capacity - AKA intelligence
> - has not increased since the Homo Sapiens. It's a computer that
> can be programmed with any program. Originally with biology's
> "survival" then by society's "our cause" and finally with
> intellects "objectivity". Now it must be re-programmed with the
> MOQ's program, but that's not easy.
>
> > To claim that a belief in gods is somehow inferior is
> > expressed most likely because you do not have that feeling.
> > Instead you have this feeling of Quality, which is not nearly as
> > complex and filling. I would suggest you do a little thinking
> > about what gods represent, why they are used, and why we are so
> > much better of now that we have provided dead nouns to things.
> > Call the sun a ball of flame we orbit around, or call it a god
> > being carried across the sky by a chariot.
>
> The MOQ claims that "belief in gods" (the social-emotional level)
> is statically inferior to the intellectual-rational explanation,
> but puts it all in a greater perspective that shows that each level
> is a level of the VALUE and the necessary base for the next. Even
> the intellectual- rational is necessary for the MOQ.
>
> > Both are just descriptions, neither right nor wrong.
> > Living with animism is a much fuller life than with a scientific
> > explanation. If that is the course of Quality, then Quality would
> > prefer gods.
>
> Not "just descriptions", they are different levels.
>
> > Reading or rereading stuff from Joseph Campbell would be a good
> > place to start.
>
> I know Campbell's, it's an excellent presentation of the social -
> emotional (mythological) level.But I suggest YOU to read Pirsig, its
> a requirement to be allowed 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/
>
>
> 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/
>
>
>
------- End of forwarded message -------
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list