[MD] Another parallel

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/16/09 4:48 AM, "X Acto" <xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:

Hi Ron and Marsha,

The existence that SOM proposes for Subject and Object is not the same
existence.  Aristotle developed his Metaphysics after he developed his
Psychology.  In his psychology he posited that the mind abstracts an essence
from the object and gives the abstracted essence intentional existence in
the mind.  SOM is based on a supposition of intentional existence. When
later philosophers examined S they saw that S is indefinable, but is
existentially connected to the Object.   ³I think therefore I am.²  I think
receives its validity from I am.   IN SOM logic the Object defines the
subject.  

Imho In the MOQ levels in Evolution exist. O exists.  DQ, undefined
evolution , participates with the O in creating individuals in a defined
moral hierarchy.  In MOQ logic, Evolution and Object participate in defining
the moral hierarchy in an individual.

When Pirsig confronted that problem, he saw that the subject Quality had
real existence in evolution.  There problem was that DQ was perceptible but
not conceivable.  DQ could not be put into words, it had to remain
undefined. 

Joe

>> Marsha:
>> I just want to clearly understand the above definition.  Both the terms
>> 'intellectual' and 'intellect'  (not 'intelligence') denote an abstract,
>> rational, objective and reflective attitude.  Is that correct?
>> 
>> You are also saying that this type of acknowledged, formal style of thinking
>> is represented by the term SOM and reflects all fourth-level patterns.  Yes?
> 
> Marsha expands:
> And a proper metaphysics (as in the term SOM) because there is an acknowledged
> and formalized attempt to strip away personal emotions, biases, prejudices and
> preferences; yet in doing so both the objective and the subjective are
> acknowledged as existents.
> 
> Ron:
> Marsha, you got it. Thats what Bo means but is terrible at explaining. But
> this in itself
> is the problem of the dominance of objectivism. Positing that MoQ do the same
> and
> assume objectivisms place as "reality" is'nt really solving the problem.
> It looks like it solves the problem, if you are an objectivist and when Bo
> interprets
> our (myself and Daves) assertions he criticises it on the grounds of
> subjective
> solopsism, which he fears is the doom of the MoQ, which only goes to prove
> that he takes an objectivists metaphysical view. He uses objectivly dominant
> explainations (dictionary and wiki definition) to support his view, but those
> are really examples of an objectivly dominated societies definitions of what
> constitutes intellect. aka the defect in SOM. Bo builds on the problem without
> realizing it by asserting that SOM IS intellect because objectivism states
> that
> SOM IS intellect.
> What in a objectivly dominated level of thinking deems subjective and nonsense
> is closer to what MoQ posits. MoQ posits that everything, all static patterns
> are intellectual
> patterns of value, it's how we understand dynamic experience. The "thoughts
> come
> before matter" statement. Not a solopsism. Bo, understandably, refuses to
> grasp
> this based on objectivily dominated intellectual patterns that he is so
> accustomed
> to holding as the standard of intellectual thought. Nothing else makes sense
> to him.
> I just wish he wasn't so pompous about his "superior intellect" and equating
> himself 
> as a biblical figure, THAT alone should be reason enough to give pause to his
> assertions.
> 
> -Ron
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2009 6:19:27 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Another parallel
> 
> At 05:21 AM 7/16/2009, you wrote:
>>> Bo:
>>> On the Norwegian Wikipedia MOQ page "intellect" is an active link (not
>>> so in the English) and I translate:
>>> 
>>>     "Intellectual denotes an abstract, rational, objective and
>>>     reflective attitude. To be intellectual is consequently not about
>>>     being particularly intelligent, it's more to be understood as a
>>>     special way of applying one's intelligence. Intellect is
>>>     contrasted to a more immediate emotional perception"
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha:
>> I just want to clearly understand the above definition.  Both the terms
>> 'intellectual' and 'intellect'  (not 'intelligence') denote an abstract,
>> rational, objective and reflective attitude.  Is that correct?
>> 
>> You are also saying that this type of acknowledged, formal style of thinking
>> is represented by the term SOM and reflects all fourth-level patterns.  Yes?
> 
> Marsha expands:
> And a proper metaphysics (as in the term SOM) because there is an acknowledged
> and formalized attempt to strip away personal emotions, biases, prejudices and
> preferences; yet in doing so both the objective and the subjective are
> acknowledged as existents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ____________
> 
> "Compassion diminishes fright about your own pain and increases inner
> strength." ~His Holiness, the Dalai Lama
> 
>   
> 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/