[MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

[X Acto]

John,

SOL (subject/object logic) short for

subject/object logic as quality intellect

or
SOLAQI

 part irrational savage myself

have a freind who's Ohlone, who originally
hail from yer neck o da woods

hinkahte-m



 


----- Original Message ----
From: John Carl <ridgecoyote at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2009 1:34:08 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ

Ok Bo, I'm gonna try and unpick my way.  But I honestly don't know what a
lot of your terms mean.  SOL is probably my biggest problem.  You should do
a wiki entry.



> > Something today has me thinking along the same lines:  My objecting to
> > Objectivism.
>
> Objectivism  (Rationality) along with subjectivism (Irrationality)



Ok, already I'm confused.  How can subjectivism - the idea that all that
exists is "just in my head" (?) and as an aside its the pejorative "just"
that's the big problem, otherwise its a tautology, be considered
"irrational"?  Irrationality means the same as random, with no thought,
method, brain or order.  Crazy with no pattern or purpose.

So already I'm confused.



> SOM emerged as rationality,



Rationality created SOM,  The basic world view of  western civ had a genetic
defect in rationality itself which evolved into objectivist metaphysics
wherein truth about objects was valued above the good of the subjects.


but simultaneously irrationality emerged,
> it's what darkness is to light, what intellect contemptuously called the
> past (what we know as the Social level).



Darkness/light, rationality/irrationality.... I dunno.  When you say "the
past" you seem to be using the term "irrationality" to denote the primitive
world view of non-western culture - like native Americans compared to the
intellectual victorians would call them irrational savages.  But I'm not
always sure what you mean.  I'm part irrational savage, ya know.

which is just a pejorative term one culture uses for another and has no kind
of DQ as a metaphysical knife.



> Thus irrationality is part of
> intellect's repertoire, and why I call it the value of the distinction (the
> elements themselves has no existence) The Social level is from before
> intellect and consequently knows no "irrationality" and dislikes being
> called so (by intellect)  the devout believer says that God is beyond
> rationality's "jurisdiction", God is neither objective nor subjective.
>
>
Oh.

My.

Goodness.


I'll start with the last part first.  All the devout believers I've met very
definitely believe that God is like a big daddy in the sky.  This is what
they devoutly believe!  If you find a thoughtful and scholarly believer in a
"God beyond rationality's jurisdiction", I guarantee you that that brand of
open-minded thoughtfulness does not apply to what I see exhibited as "devout
believers".

But where you say that this socially-oriented group does NOT like being
called irrational by intellectuals?  There you are correct sir.

The part about irrationality as  part of intellect's repertoire could also
be posited as intellect being part of irrationality's repertoire, could it
not?  Who's carrying whose baggage in this formulation?

The value of distinction: every yin needs a bit 'o the yang now and then.
Yeah, I get that.




> And s/he is right, what God really is the MOQ has no opinion about
> (real/irreal is intellect's business)


If the MoQ has something to say about the way I do the dishes, how could it
not have a judgement about my relations to a big daddy in the sky?

I mean, if I can't use a metaphysics to weigh God and the dishes, then it's
just not a very good metaphysics.




> it just says that rationality is a  higher
> static good. We may however have dynamic insights and raptures
> where all static patterns are transcended, but these  do not transcend
> the MOQ, because it IS the Dynamic/Static distinction itself. Here's
> where Pirsig went too far from fear of not sounding "dynamic" enough.
>


Why do you think this is too far?  Any metaphysics, as an object of mind, is
subject to change through the apprehension of new knowledge according to
orientation toward Quality.

What is Quality?

It's where we stand, in analyzing our metaphysical stance.

But... but.... but....

Oh.

Nevermind.

Now, why do you think this is going "too far"?  To my mind, it's going
exactly far enough to get there.  Why are you so picky, Bo?





>
> Most of the alleged moqists claim that the intellectual level is a mental
> realm of ideas, SOM one idea, the MOQ another. I don't call them -
> Ron f.ex -  stupid, but something important is missing in their
> understanding.




I wouldn't call Ron stupid either.  But I have no problem with calling SOM
and MoQ competing metaphysical systems devised by various intellectual
-level endeavors.  (NOT just individual intellects neither you individualism
freaks!)  You can call me stupid.  I don't mind.  I don't even know what
SOL means!




> Mental/Corporeal is another S/O and what the MOQ
> rejects as fundamental consequently there is no idea realm different
> from a material ditto  -  outside of the 4th. level, that is.
>
>
Well I'm gonna have to think some more about the idea of objects which exist
outside of  mind.

Nah, I don't think I will.  I'm gonna go unload more garbage from  my truck
onto my hillside and think about whatever I wanna think.

John the fool laboring at his hill
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/