[MD] irony and socrates

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Ian

19 Oct. you wrote:

> I put scare quotes around my "made of", just as I did around your
> "arrangement". Please stop "accusing me" of misunderstanding and
> discuss the actual points. You arm waving use of the word "arrangement"
> and "the greater MoQ" is all I am talking about, when we "describe" the
> MoQ.  (I also said "consider", "talk-about" etc ...) 

It's not easy to know what your quotation marks indicates. Anyway the 
term "metaphysics" indicates a particular arrangement of reality.  

> Clearly any S/O language or images can be potentially misleading about
> things we'd rather not characterize as subjects or objects - that's
> the story of MoQ-Discuss life. BUT ... what do we show to anyone who's
> not been through 8 or 10 years of MD debate ... or an alien invented
> language ... a "representation" of the MoQ.

Each level have once been leading edge, and in a sense can be 
regarded as its era's "metaphysics".  Inorganic and biological we 
disregard, but the social level may well be seen as its era's 
"metaphysics" and in its later stage it had developed written language 
and those who study these writings understand them  My subtle point 
is that language once conveyed Q-social value, then it started to 
convey Q-intellectual (SOM) value and may well convey MOQ's 
"value". New terms will emerge as they always have.             

> Here Fred - this is what I'm talking about - let me sketch it for you
> on the back of a napkin.

It will take time - see how long it took for you to grab the intellect=SOM 
point ;-).If you agree?? But at least you understand.

> You arrangement simply doesn't "represent" the quality aspects -
> they're kinda "everywhere and nowhere in the picture" - arm-waving /
> finfer-pointing - which if you recall is where this debate started
> with the Finger / Moon discussion and Paul Turner's discussion about
> how to "represent" the MoQ "Terrain" in a picture or "Map". (Doesn't
> have to be a 2D picture either.)

The MOQ conveys (by language goes without saying) that everything 
is aspects of  Quality, Dynamic and Static. The Reality/Language - or 
its Q-form - Quality/Concept distinction is a SOM vestige and I simply 
can't fathom how Pirsig wuld fall into that pit, but it was his desperate 
need to be in agreement with someone like William James.

Bodvar














     




> 
> Regards
> Ian
> 
> On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 6:53 PM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > For Ian
> >
> > 16 Oct. you wrote:
> >
> >> So, at last we return from whence we came  ...
> >
> > Agree, after more than 10 years! 1998 is the earliest archive date
> > and about that time I began my SOList career.
> >
> >> All the interesting stuff (anything that's better than S/OM) is in
> >> this thing you call the DQ/SQ "arrangement".
> >
> > No sarcasm Ian but the DQ/SQ arrangement is the MOQ itself, and it's
> > no surprise that the levels are subsets of the greater Q-system
> > called the Metaphysics of Quality.
> >
> >> Where is this "arrangement" what's it "made of" ?
> >> And when we "consider" it, talk about it, debate it in our
> >> thoughts, actions, experiences, writings and e-mails what do we
> >> call this philosophical activity - this "quality thinking" beyond
> >> SOM Intellect
> >
> > Quality is Reality and no moqist (at least) asks what it is "made
> > of", again you display the intellect=the thinking-faculty notion
> > ....
> 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/
> 
>