[MD] concerning SOL??

Tue Sep 1 08:58:43 PDT 2009

Marsha,
I suppose, philosophical objectivity would be a better term to use,
this term is relativly recent simply because british sensory empiricism
positivism and the like, were thought to be observing actual physical
reality as it exists universally and absolutely. It was only when the 
schools of philosophical idealism emerged did the term have any
philosophical meaning. It is Pirsigs "SOM"

"Objectivism" is a term that describes a branch of philosophy that originated in the early nineteenth century. 
Gottlob Frege was the first to apply it, when he expounded an epistemological and metaphysical theory contrary 
to that of Immanuel Kant. Kant's rationalism attempted to reconcile the failures he perceived in realism, 
empiricism, and idealism and to establish a critical method of approach in the distinction between 
epistemology and metaphysics.
Objectivism, in this context, is an alternate name for philosophical realism, the view that there is a 
reality or ontological realm of objects and facts that exists independent of the mind. Stronger 
versions of this claim might hold that there is only one correct description of this reality. If 
it is true that reality is mind-independent, it is thus inclusive of objects that are unknown and 
not the subject of intentionality. Objectivity in referring requires a definition of truth. According 
to metaphysical objectivists, an object may truthfully be said to have this or that attribute, as in 
the statement "This object exists," whereas the statement "This object is true" or "false" is meaningless. 
Thus, only propositions have truth values. Essentially, the terms "objectivity" and "objectivism" are not 
synonymous, with objectivism being an ontological theory that incorporates a commitment to the objectivity 
of objects.
-wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 11:05:33 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] concerning SOL??

Ron,

RMP talks of Objectivism, as far as I have found, only in LILA's Child, and
that is in regard to Ayn Rand.  Are you referring to Rand's Objectivism, or
something else?

Marsha

-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of X Acto
Sent: Tuesday, September 01, 2009 10:04 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: [MD] concerning SOL??

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/