[MD] concerning SOL??

[X Acto]

Bo:
> I can only point to the "in-out turned sock" metaphor, and the "bug" 
> that before lived in a stinking confined environment suddenly finds 
> itself surrounded by fresh air and great new vistas.


Ron:

HOW does it achieve this, WHAT are the benefits? exactly HOW does this
metaphor change anything?


Ron and Steve

Sep 2. you wrote to Steve

> I would'nt be frustrated if my point would simply be considered, in
> fact, it's not about right or wrong so much as practical use and
> understanding, if Bo's assertion of SOM as the intellectual level had
> some benefit, some meaning past the assertion, some pragmatic
> usefulness in understanding it in this way I['m entirely open to it,
> but he has yet to explain this aspect. He just repeats that
> structurally, it makes more sense to him from an objective historical
> perspective. 
Bo:
I sense a little frustration with Steve and that's good.

As I tried to tell only the SOL interpretation (Q-intellect=the value of 
the "objective over subjective" attitude) makes sense of Pirsig's 
assertion that most major conflicts has been/still are "Society vs 
Intellect". How the heck can manipulation of symbols offend the  
Islamists (I know that Pirsig regards the Islam vs West  as another 
such conflict)? It's completely nonsense.

Ron:
It is complete nonsense because, yet again, you do not take the time to read.
Islam is offended by the objective destruction of society, it takes society's side
over biology SOM takes biology's side over society, when was the last time
you read either ZMM or Lila?

Bo:
 While intellect's objective 
attitude that reduces religions and "holy scriptures" to scientific 
studies is the death of the role Islam plays. It's this convincing 
explanation plus the dissolution of all SOM's platypus that spells the 
benefit of the SOL interpretation and without which the MOQ is a 
lame duck..  

Ron:
I keep asking HOW and all you've given me is bugs in socks metaphors.
HOW does it relate to and change anything for the life of an everyday
person in western culture? WHAT does your metaphor stand for in
practicle terms.  

> But in my opinion it creates more questions and confusion in reference
> to the MoQ than it explains anything what so ever. In fact it implies
> that subjects objects logic and analytic are intrinsic in nature and
> are "discovered" by rational beings where ever and when ever they
> emerge in the universe. Which, is a striking SOM assumption if you ask
> me, I mean objective scientific realism would agree 100% with that
> claim, would'nt this ring a few bells? send up a red flag or six? 

Bo:
If you would read without imposing your own pre-made interpretation 
maybe you would understand. What I claim is that the intellectual 
level must follow the social level which must follow  ...etc.

Ron:
just as Pirsig, ok.. we're getting somewhere.....

Bo:
 Further I 
claim that intellect must be the "objective-over-subjective attitude" 
anywhere in the universe in the same sense that the biological level 
must be life

and the social about life joining a cause greater than life. 
Then the next - intellectual -  level must be about transcending that 
cause and that can only be done by the OBJECTIVE attitude that 
disarms it by showing that it is SUBJECTIVE. 

Ron:
Why is that the ONLY way? in fact it's that way that under cuts and destroys the
lower levels, that can't be transcending society, it's killing it. or maye that is what
you mean.

Bo:
"Intrinsic in nature"?? There is no nature in the MOQ, only at Intellect. 
Its "culture/nature" S/O. 

Ron:
Glad you see it that way but one doesent need MoQ to view it like this.
so you, like the SOM anthropolgists, think that any culture that does not
view things in terms of s/o are under developed.

> If one were to take this angle, how would one go about proving that the
> next step in evolution, the discovery of the real fabric of the
> universe, was invented by a retired school teacher who has no
> experience or evidence in physics to suport his claim? let alone any
> calculations or observations to prove this theory. it has no pragmatic
> use what so ever to a physicist other than a novel way in which to
> interpret data. It amounts to a kind of scientology, I mean, Bo could
> make a mint off of SOL like L.Ron Hubbard but short of thAT......I
> dunno. 

Bo:
I feel I have answered this many times, but it's water on geese. 
According to the MOQ all levels began as a pattern of the parent 
level ambiguous enough for DQ to hijack it to the next static plane - 
"taking off on a purpose of its own". Thus it's not the person Pirsig 
who invented the MOQ, but his intellectual component that his 
intelligence drove to the extremes where it dynamically  "took off on a 
purpose of its own".

Ron:
And you think people are going to buy that explaination? 

all I can say is good luck. then, they adude that lives in the sky
perhaps you may be in luck. 







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/