[MD] Intellectual Level

[ADRIE KINTZIGER]

[Platt]
It places the conceptually unknown within the moral hierarchy. Otherwise DQ
has
no home.

[Arlo]
Are you saying that in Pirsig's MOQ, "DQ has no home" because the
intellectual
level is not SOM? I don't think in Pirsig's MOQ DQ is without a home, as he
himself says of his MOQ, "static and Dynamic Quality [are] the fundamental
division of the world".
------------------------------------
Adrie.
As well DQ as SQ, value and quality will reside and are residing at all
levels,
The conceptually unknown does not exist, the unknown does, it resides
around every particle, every droplet of water, every plant , every tought.

The unknown!
The unknown?...so we are building a metaphysikal system nowadays that is
founded upon, DQ has no home, as basic concept, pimped up with the
formula as this,..

"It places the conceptually unknown within the moral hierargy"

Briljant , Platt/Bo/ marsha.
But the implications are not to be disregarded, if the 'conceptually
unknown'
is sheltered in the moral hierargy only, not only you made it the KNOWN!--
but you are denying the unknown, or conceptually unknown to exist at other
levels.

But i suppose if you are the author/inventer, you can fill in the
propertyfields as you please, it doesn't need to make a lot of sense.

And another implication,
The moral hierargy is changing in a dynamical proces, called evolution,so by
implication, the conceptually unknown is evolving? how on earth can it be
the conceptually unknown, if and when the properties are known?

Strictly spoken, Platt, DQ is an event, evolving behind all patterns, all
levels, all
other events, exept Quality itself. And the unknown is to run along with all
of them.

In Quantum physiks , the unknown is still to "happen", and i think this is
not deviating from common sense.



2010/12/29 ARLO J BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu>

> [Platt]
> On the contrary. You confuse a metaphysical stance with its symbols.
>
> [Arlo]
> As I just pointed out to Marsha, Pirsig has said, "A subject-object
> metaphysics
> is in fact a metaphysics in which the first division of Quality - the first
> slice of undivided experience ­ is into subjects and objects." (LILA)
>
> He goes on, "What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box that sits
> above these two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he also saw
> a
> huge number of ways in which Quality can be divided. Subjects and objects
> are
> just one of the ways." (LILA)
>
> SOM is a particular metaphysical stance about the "fundamental" division of
> "reality". You continue to confuse this with the "subjects" and "objects"
> of
> grammar. "SOM" has nothing to do with an intellectual pattern that is
> expressed
> symbolically via grammar.
>
> [Platt]
> It places the conceptually unknown within the moral hierarchy. Otherwise DQ
> has
> no home.
>
> [Arlo]
> Are you saying that in Pirsig's MOQ, "DQ has no home" because the
> intellectual
> level is not SOM? I don't think in Pirsig's MOQ DQ is without a home, as he
> himself says of his MOQ, "static and Dynamic Quality [are] the fundamental
> division of the world".
>
>
>
> 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/md/archives.html
>



-- 
parser