[MD] My first message to this list.

[timetrap]

Just started reading Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance.

o_0 that's quite an eyeful ...

On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 10:04 AM, X Acto<xacto at rocketmail.com> wrote:
> Bo,
> I have my blinkers on but not my blinders, I understand your SOL,
> unless you forgot that I once was your advocate.
>
> until it dawned on me that in your interpretation
> western civilisation is at the top of the evolutionary heirarchy,
> objectivisms split of s/o is replaced with SQ/DQ and value
> is merely subjective, a pit fall to the greater understanding
> that MoQ (the DQ/SQ split) IS reality.
>
> problems:
> 1. Objectivism is still intact(value of the s/o split) only now SOL proposes that physical
> phenomena be explained in DQ/SQ terminology. (some how
> this has greater explainitory power)
>
> 2. The cultivation of cultural-centric view of the universe
> and it's superiority over other cultures as evolutionarily more advanced
> (same as SOM)
>
> 3. Personal Value is still rendered subjective and a SOM pitfall
> which still keeps people isolated and alone in the DQ/SQ universe.
> (same as SOM)
>
> 4. it glorifies scientific positivism (same as SOM)
>
> 5. the 5th level problem (for obviously in this interpretation
> the 4 levels do NOT cover all of reality) what was Pirsig thinking?
>
> Put it all together and Pirsigs MoQ is a incomplete mess full of holes.
>
> That only Bodvar and his SOL can fix, wait, that IS bodvars SOL.
> his fix, since there is only ONE "metaphysic" (one reality)
> that term must be bumped up to the "M" in MoQ.
> (which is reality itself) the description of physical reality
> in terms of it's REAL split DQ/SQ.
>
> but has not a level within it's own system because, of container logic.
>
>
>  questions emerged, what exactly was this "pre" intellectual
> experience Pirsig was talking about? did he mean historically?
> most of his work then contradicts itself.
>
> well, ignore that part. It doesent makes sense, Pirsig was dilusional.
> He did'nt realize the greatness of his earlier postulate that subjects and
> objects emerge from static quality, DQ's first "spawn".
>
> Question
> doesent that make things and thoughts about things static quality?
> is'nt that the same as saying things and thoughts about things are
> composed of objective static substance?
>
> Answer
> Bo sez not the same, static quality is not substance its what we can percieve
> of dynamic quality. Like waves in the ocean.
>
> Question
> But thats still naming physical reality, the reality we percieve
> as universally absolute for all observers.
>
> duhoo!
>
> never mind that, you're just ignorant Ron, you don't understand the MoQ like Bo does.
> you sir, are a disapointment, a mental midget go to the back of the class! it's the
> greater explanitory power we concern ourselves with! subjective value is SOM's tenticals!
>
> Question:
> Well, how are we to get scientists and physicist to start defining physical reality in
> terms of SQ/DQ?
>
> Answer:
> Bo sez:
> Through evangelism like Paul the apostle. eventually it'll take hold because it's the next step
> in human evolution.
>
> oh
>
> well exactly HOW does defining physical reality in terms of DQ/SQ have greater explanitory power?
> If you do not understand modern physics how do you know?
>
> Bo's explaination:
> I don't know anything about quantum weirdness, it just does, trust me, I'm brilliant!.
> It's the next step in human evolution and you must be an idiot not to realize the enormity
> of this breakthrough.
>
> ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "skutvik at online.no" <skutvik at online.no>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 3:54:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ
>
> Marsha and Ron.
>
> Marsha said to me (before Ron turned meteorologist)
>
>> I'm still with you.  The Intellectual Level is about objectifying
>> abstract symbols:
>
> To be forthcoming I may have tried to accommodate this but I feel lost,
> why not the infinite simple: Intellect is the ability to distinguish between
> S and O - in this case - abstract and concrete.
>
> My dictionary says about "INTELLECT"
>
>     The power of mind to reason in contrast with feeling and
>     instinct.
>
> "Power of mind" we may omit for what is not PoM? "Feeling" is MOQ's
> Social level and "Instinct" is the Biological, thus from inside Intellect
> seen feelings are SUBJECTIVE while itself is OBJECTIVE (instincts
> are too primitive to be considered).
>
> However, we see things from above all static levels and from there
> intellect is the VALUE of this distinction. The Social level itself isn't
> subjective because it is from before the S/O distinction.
>
> Ron has donned blinkers and not willing to see, but for those with the
> full vision it's obvious. However, it's the SIMPLICITY that prevents the
> true understanding of the MOQ.
>
> However as an exercise for Ron: In ZAMM (in the diagram page)
> Pirsig depicts SOM as equal to intellect (the only level at that stage)
>
> As not to distract you I'll return to the "Chinese philosophy" later.
>
>
> 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/
>