[MD] Uncertainty

[MarshaV]

Dave,

You are intellectualizing and up to your eyeballs in objectification.  Also,
it seems to me, you are using a 'all or nothing' mentality which distorts
the argument. As if all these non-Western peoples NEVER had a subject/object
dualistic thought.  You might say these non-Western peoples didn't get
totally bogged down in a static, valueless modernity.  And a person may be
an intellectual but be highly intelligent as I use the terms.

Think about this, Buddhism deals with breaking down the belief in an
inherently existing self and objects, and it wasn't developed for Western
peoples.  

This was just my little aside, I'll let Bo answer you from his perspective.



Marsha






-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of David Thomas
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 1:23 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] Uncertainty

On 9/9/09 2:35 AM, "MarshaV" <valkyr at att.net> wrote:

> I've stated plainly that I agree with Bo on two aspects of his argument:
the
> Intellectual Level being the subject/object level, and the MoQ being a
major
> separation with the Intellectual Level representing a new level, a new
> perspective.  But I can also agree with what Bo has been saying about the
> split from the Social Level creating the Intellectual Level occurring with
> the early Greeks, "Aristotle's insistence on the Law of
Non-Contradiction."
> and the rational/irrational split.  So I agree with _three_ points of Bo's
> argument.  

(Marsha, Bo)
Marsha I snipped this out of the middle but think your comments before and
after were right on course.

Bo, here is as good a place to start as any. If RMP was just going to slide
a new foundation under Western Philosophy as he claimed what you suggest
might work. But remember his quest in part started because of the "Indians."
Be they, Crow, Cheyenne, Sioux, Maya, Aztec, Hindoo Indians, Chinese,
Japanese etc. In fact all the other people in the world. The majority. None
of whom initially developed their world view under the Western S/O umbrella.
The second goal he set for himself was to bring all these folks (everybody)
under a metaphysical umbrella. Unite Western and Eastern (read all other
heathen "Indians") philosophies. One of those "make no small plans" quests.

Now if we modify the MoQ as you propose we are faced with some dilemmas.

Either all the "Indians", the majority of the people of the world have not
evolved to the SOL (Intellectual) level because by RMP's original premise,
insight, whatever, they are outside the Western fold. Or they have, but
either are not aware of it or have chosen not to make it part of their
foundation. Which kind of amounts to the same thing. This suggests that
before "your" MoQ could even start towards RMPs goal a majority of the
cultures in the world have to evolve from the social to the SOL level and
then though it to reach the MoQ level.

I'm sure you find this as untenable as I do.

I do agree with you though that in many respects RMP is his own worst enemy.
In trying to put SOM into its place he claims that the level emerged in
Greece exclusively roughly 10,000 years ago when it was "named".
This is what James would call, "vicious intellectualism." In my field the
Greeks are the source of the word "Architect" and "Architecture". While one
can claim that there were neither prior to the "name" being assigned, what
is the use or the good of that now? None, it obscures to count philosophical
coup. Me pointing to a pyramid or Zen pointing to the Moon punctures that
balloon.

(Marsha)
Sorry for high-jacking this thread. I'll try to restrain myself in the
future and get a new one started to explore this issue.

Dave


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/