[MD] MOQ evolution

[Joseph Maurer]

On 7/28 Joe quotes Bo and Ron:

John 
(the raiser of a thousand issues per post ;)
 
24 July wrote:
 
> I am clearly making a distinction between images
> and words here, based upon the MoQ hierarchy of the social vs. the
> intellectual.  Images are a form of social communication and words are
> primarily intellectual.
 
Is this is saying that language is the hallmark of the intellectual level?
Well, no one (except this person) has any idea what defines intellect or
when it first manifested itself on "our" scene (the "orientals" may have
achieved it and transcended it for some Quality-like development)  but
at least I believe that everybody agrees that Cave Man were prior to the
4th. level - but the Cro Magnons and possibly the Neantderthals "had
language" so that's clearly a blind alley.
 
But what characterized social existence was/is the lack of SOM, no
conviction that words were mere subjective description of something
else, or that images/statues/totem poles were just dead matter formed
into something resembling something else. "Words - in a correct
uttered way (rituals called) were a powerful means of getting in touch
with whatever powers who governed existence. Likewise re. pictures,
they weren't "decorations" but also played some ritualism role.
 
The non-SOM still characterizes social value, religion its most
prominent pattern where prayer isn't mere words but a means to get in
touch with "god", Christian sacraments the same, the intellectual SOM-
ists point to the ridiculousness in believing in wine-as-blood ...etc. and
the suicide bombers belief in becoming martyrs or voodoo dolls bringing
destruction to the "effigied" person ... etc ...etc, but social value is an
"older" and more strong latch and we will all "drop" to that  level when/if
the intellectual latch gives way. But luckily it's strong.
 
Bodvar.    
 

John said to Bo:
Quality is ultimately the "big picture" - an Idealistic framework - and
radical empiricism is the reductionistic mechanism thought (by some) to
prove/produce its existence.

dmb says:
No, the metaphysics of Quality is the big picture and it's an intellectual
framework, just as all metaphysical systems are. Quality is direct, everyday
experience, not a mechanism and certainly not a reductionist mechanism.
Quality doesn't need to be proved because the term refers to what all
persons already know directly from experience. Do you need a mechanism by
which it can be proved that you don't like lima beans? Nope. You just put
them in your mouth and you immediately know they're awful. This is not
"knowledge" in the conceptual sense of the word, but you know it for sure.
You "know" in the sense of a basic familiarity as in, "I know that face" or
"I know that song" or "I know that kind of heartache". You "know" what I
mean?

Ron interjects:

I think Royce, in his defense of the "absolute", brings about a certian
rationalised objectivism to his idealism.
While James maintains empirical "raw feels".
Idealism, which has been historically misinterpreted, generally asserts it
broken into two
distinct camps, objective idealism and subjective idealism. That objects
exist, but what are
experienced is sensory stimuli not the objects themselves and that objects
only exist when percieved.
which both famously assume that objects, are the beginning of sensory
perception.

Royce, in my opinion, begins to reify in his asserions of the absolute.
Royce posits about the universal absolute
where James focus is on individual "radical" meaning and it's pragmatic
consequences without postulating
the origin of raw feels or needing to.

I think this is what attracted Pirsig. Once he understood that idealism may
be embedded within
radically empirical meaning he saw how science and religeon could indeed
flow together.

 

Hi Bo and Ron and all,

For some reason I see these posts saying the same thing.  Where Bo
emphasizes the uncertainty of the latch of intellect, Ron sees the
uncertainty and interprets Pirsig¹s attraction to making bedfellows of
Science and Religion.

I do not know what the latch of intellectualism lacks.  The mathematical
logic of S and O seems firmly in place.  I do not think the indeterminate of
perception is illogical to the indeterminate of dividing by 0!  They merely
cancel each other out in an undefined reality of an evolution to an
individual perception of higher social and higher intellectual qualities..

As I read both posts I am reminded of the joy sitting in a church choir
watching a mother with her little daughter standing at the door while the
service is going on, and seeing that the little girl instead of being
intimidated has the urge to dance to the music around her mother.  She takes
a couple of steps and the feeling is contagious.

Joe

> 



John said to Bo:
Quality is ultimately the "big picture" - an Idealistic
> framework - and radical empiricism is the reductionistic mechanism thought (by
> some) to prove/produce its existence.



dmb says:
No, the metaphysics of
> Quality is the big picture and it's an intellectual framework, just as all
> metaphysical systems are. Quality is direct, everyday experience, not a
> mechanism and certainly not a reductionist mechanism. Quality doesn't need to
> be proved because the term refers to what all persons already know directly
> from experience. Do you need a mechanism by which it can be proved that you
> don't like lima beans? Nope. You just put them in your mouth and you
> immediately know they're awful. This is not "knowledge" in the conceptual
> sense of the word, but you know it for sure. You "know" in the sense of a
> basic familiarity as in, "I know that face" or "I know that song" or "I know
> that kind of heartache". You "know" what I mean?



Ron interjects:

I think
> Royce, in his defense of the "absolute", brings about a certian rationalised
> objectivism to his idealism.
While James maintains empirical "raw
> feels".
Idealism, which has been historically misinterpreted, generally
> asserts it broken into two
distinct camps, objective idealism and subjective
> idealism. That objects exist, but what are
experienced is sensory stimuli not
> the objects themselves and that objects only exist when percieved.
which both
> famously assume that objects, are the beginning of sensory perception.

Royce,
> in my opinion, begins to reify in his asserions of the absolute. Royce posits
> about the universal absolute
where James focus is on individual
> "radical" meaning and it's pragmatic consequences without postulating
the
> origin of raw feels or needing to.

I think this is what attracted Pirsig.
> Once he understood that idealism may be embedded within
radically empirical
> meaning he saw how science and religeon could indeed flow
> together.







 

__________________________________________________________
> _______
Bing brings you maps, menus, and reviews organized in one place. Try
> it 
> now.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=restaurants&form=MLOGEN&publ=WLHMTAG&crea=TX
> T_MLOGEN_Local_Local_Restaurants_1x1
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo,
> Unsubscribing 
> etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
h
> ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/p
> ipermail/moq_discuss_archive/



      
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo,
> Unsubscribing 
> etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
h
> ttp://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/p
> ipermail/moq_discuss_archive/