[MD] Some historical perspective

[Ian Glendinning]

I seriously agree with you too Marsha.

I wasn't talking about there being any big problem.
The problem is simply Bo's bloody mindedness that leads him to insist
"only he gets it and the rest of us are idiots", unless they agree
with his particular "flatland" representation. Representations always
flatten something.

I've had enough of this "Bo" line of argument for now - thanks for the
therapy - there are bigger problems to debate, higher concerns to soar
with.
Regards
Ian


On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:30 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
> Oh...  It's the old flatlander problem.  Dynamic Quality is red; static
> quality is blue; the MoQ is a royal purple pyramid. -  ??? -  Just radiate
> quality and morality will be served.  I don't know.  Seriously, I don't
> think it's too much of a problem.  It's time has come.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
> Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 6:13 AM
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] Some historical perspective
>
> No you're not Marsha (being too idealist), you're dead right.
> The problem with "transcend" is not with the transcending, it is
> simply how to depict it in a mental model that comprises only the 4
> static PoV levels - the pinnacle of which is SOMism.
>
> They say a picture paints a thousand words - so when someone says what
> is this MoQ you speak of, can you draw me a picture - what do you do ?
> Say No ? How do you draw "transcending" ?
>
> Logically, it is fine to say - this is a monism - the arete / quality
> / care / love doesn't appear "in" the picture because the whole
> picture is built out of the stuff - and of course we are right back to
> the map / terrain - finger / moon - Paul Turner discussion.
>
> Transcendence ? Another activity in another layer / dimension ? The
> map doesn't have to be in simple 2D.
> (Space-time is a good deal weirder than Bo presumes - even
> transfigural maybe - but that's another story.)
>
> (Here, I'm just trying to construct a communicable mental image - to
> share with other humans. Something tangible here and now "on one page"
> to add to the entire evolutionary historical narrative - not to
> replace it. We are quite used to making the mental distinction between
> a representation and the represented being different things, of
> different kinds. When we draw a black line on a map representing a
> road, we don't get all confused and try to drive down the black line
> do we ?)
>
> Let me draw you a picture.
> Ian
>
> On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:42 AM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> Maybe why 'superposition' has been of such interest to me.  Maybe from the
>> Quality-Level a superposition is established.
>>
>> Please present an intellectual static pattern of value that doesn't
>> represent a self that manipulates something.
>>
>> Something better than intellectual patterns?  Activity based on caring.
>> Wouldn't that sort of represent arête?  Why struggle to transform
>> intellectual patterns when you can transcend them?
>>
>> Am I being too idealist?  I don't think so.
>>
>>
> 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/
>