[MD] irony and socrates

[MarshaV]

Hi Bo,

You state that dynamic/concept is a problem, but I do not see a
dynamic/concept pair.  I do think 'static patterns of value' is a perfect
description, but I do see patterns as ever-changing, interrelated,
interconnected, relative and conceptually constructed. That doesn't make
them a mere concept, but they do seem to have a relationship with mental
activity and memory. 


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: Thursday, October 15, 2009 2:31 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] irony and socrates

> I do not understand your last paragraph which probably is why I have
> never mad e much sense of you SOL explanation.  I still think there
> are points where we can be allies.  I do believe the Intellectual
> Level rests on the _belief_ that Reality is made of an independent
> self and independent objects. And I do agree with you that there
> should be a Quality Level because the MoQ presents a world-view that
> is totally different than the subject/object world-view.  And I like
> the idea of the Quality level clearly stating the nature of static so 
> patterns of value: ever-changing, interrelated, interconnected,
> relative and conceptually constructed.  

Hmm, my last paragraph was this:

    Expanding: The MOQ postulates a dynamic and static aspect 
    to Quality. We all know what "dynamic" means, no use 
    heaping on more adjectives. The Static is what has 
    sedimented as the known level hierarchy the first of which is the
    universe itself and that's not a concept (it is, but language is
    our "vehicle" and "dynamic" is also a concept if you start down
    that trail). DQ/SQ has no counterpart in the Dynamic/Concept,
    that's where Pirsig deviated from Phaedrus.  

Is it the point about Dynamic/Concept not corresponding to DQ/SQ 
that looks incomprehensible? But very generally (and not directed your 
way Marsha) what prevents an understanding of the MOQ is the 
following: We are eager to denounce intellect-as-SOM's objective side, 
but it has a subjective - rear - side too and this is more difficult to give

up.. This is is a difficult issue that requires some preliminiarie so I'll 
return to it.  


Bodvar













> 
> -----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: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 3:06 PM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] irony and socrates
> 
> For Marsha 
> 
> 13 Oct. u wrote: 
> 
> > We are intellectualizing, and therefore objectification and
> > manipulation part of the process.  
> 
> Bo:
> Intelligence emerged with neural complexity and  "exploded" with the
> humans and has been used by all levels. We "intellectualize" when
> intelligence is used in the  4th level's service and "socialize"
> when its used in the 3rd.  and "biologize" ... etc.    
> 
> > I believe the MoQ is an intellectual static pattern of value, and
> > chocked full of objectified symbols.   
> 
> Bo:
> Intellect is MOQ's 4th. level and its static value is (in this case)
> the "symbol/whats symbolized" dualism. "Objectified symbols" is an
> oxymoron if you apply intellect's "symbol/what's symbolized" dualism
> where symbols are subjective by default.  
> 
> > In my investigation, the Quality presented in the MoQ is
> > unpatterned experience and patterned experience.  Patterned
> > experience (sq or static patterns of value) is conceptually
> > constructed, ever-changing, relative and interrelated. Unpatterned
> > experience (DQ) is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable.
> > Without expanding on my definition, is there something you do not
> > agree with? 
> 
> 
> Bo:
> Without expanding there is nothing I agree with.
> 
> Expanding: The MOQ postulates a dynamic and static aspect to 
> Quality. We all know what "dynamic" means, no use heaping on more
> adjectives. The Static is what has sedimented as the known level
> hierarchy the first of which is the universe itself and that's not a
> concept (it is, but language is our "vehicle" and "dynamic" is also
> a concept if you start down that trail). DQ/SQ has no counterpart in
> the Dynamic/Concept, that's where Pirsig deviated from Phaedrus.
> 
> 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 -------
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/