[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 23 Feb 2010 at 6:39, X Acto wrote:

> Platt, Bodvar,
> Then both of you assert that 
> MoQ IS "being" and that the
> intellectual level IS
> The belief "that the principles 
> of mathematics are the principles 
> of all things."

Huh? Sorry, Ron. I don't get your point. What's the difference between 
"being" and "is?" What are the "principles of math?"

Platt.




> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "plattholden at gmail.com" <plattholden at gmail.com>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Tue, February 23, 2010 9:22:41 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment
> 
> On 23 Feb 2010 at 10:44, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> 
> > O'hoi Platt
> 
> Would that be "Ahoy Platt," a navy greeting?
> 
> > 22 Feb. u wrote:
> 
> Platt 
> > > Just so I'm clear about your argument are you saying that computer
> > > languages and higher mathematics rightfully belong at the social level
> > > because they are merely extensions of language and calculation that
> > > began long before S/O dualism that marks Pirsig's intellectual emerged
> > > on scene?  
> 
> Bo 
> > I tried to say - in my peculiar "shorthand" writing style - that the term 
> > mathematics , algebra, geometry ... are names that the intellectual 
> > level put on various means of calculation, "math" using numbers as 
> > symbols, "algebra" using letters, "geometry" using figures, but pebbles, 
> > lines in sand, beads on an abacus .. etc are symbols all right, so 
> > calculating itself is infinitely older than the 4th. level. 
> 
> Platt
> Makes sense to me. Calculation goes way back, long before the S/O 
> dualism emerged.
> 
> Bo
> > It has its origin at the same level as the ability to think, namely biology, 
> > but the term "thinking" as a subjective activity contrasted to the objects 
> > for thinking is intellect's S/O, however, no static level knows the level 
> > context, they believe everything is their own legitimate property, hence 
> > Intellect's claim on "thinking" and its results like calculation in all forms, 
> > including "higher mathematics" .            
> 
> Platt
> The claims of intellect are truly outrageous. It wants to sweep up 
> everything in its path. But, unless it has read and digested the MOQ, it 
> remains largely ignorant of its S/O assumptions and why and how such 
> assumptions inevitably lead humanity to T.S. Eliot's "Wasteland."  
> 
> Platt
> > > The only problem remaining for me in your theory is the need to posit
> > > a meta-level for the MOQ which seems to replace Pirsig's suggestion of
> > > a higher level of art. I understand your (and Pirsig's)  "container"
> > > argument, but still something just doesn't seem to fit right when it
> > > comes to a meta-level reality. I'll work on it. Maybe my idea of
> > > beauty being both immanent and transcendent can supply the missing
> > > link.  
> 
> Bo 
> > At this point we are at the limits. Pirsig does not really suggest a level 
> > but "a code of art" beyond intellect which means something that wants 
> > to "debunk" intellect and that must necessarily be the MOQ, the 
> > Quality Reality.  
> 
> Platt
> I've always considered Lila a work of art as well as revelation of reality. 
> So I'll drop the meta-level idea and simply call the MOQ the Quality 
> Reality, referring those who vehemently object to Pirsig's own words:
> 
> "You can't have Box "A" contain within itself Box "B," which in turn 
> contains Box "A." That's whacko." (Lila, 4) 
> 
> Whacko, indeed.
> 
> Platt
> 
> 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/
> 
> 
> 
>       
> 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/