[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[Mary]

Hi John,

Hope all is well with you and yours.  

> > > [Mary]
> > > > Logic itself is entirely based in the
> > > > subject, the thinker, analyzing the object, the thing thought
> about.
> >
> 
> 
>[John] 
...
> Or maybe I just had Pirsig mania and everything named "object oriented"
> got
> my spidey sense tinglin'.
> 
> But I don't buy the idea that logic is fundamentally of a
> subjective/objective composition.
> 
> But in the moment of realization and creation, I don't get that SOM
> flavor
> you insist colors every single aspect of humanity's highest ideas and
> creativity.
> 
[Mary]
Yes.  I have done a poor job of explaining this, I think.  Nevertheless, I
think it.

> [John]
> > > "The man of character lives at home without exercising his mind and
> > > performs
> > > actions without worry.... Appearing stupid, he goes about like one
> who
> > > has
> > > lost his way.  He has plenty of money to spend, but does not know
> where
> > > it
> > > comes from."
> > >
> > > Chuang-tzu
> > >
> > [Mary Replies]
> > I didn't realize they had Republicans in Chaung-tzu's time.
> >
> >
> [John]
> Me:  He sounds more like a welfare deadbeat, to me.
>
[Mary]
Possibly both/either.  I was at first trying to be funny.  Does the welfare
deadbeat have character?  Does the Republican?  Does character have them?
What is character anyway?  Social Level?

[John] 
> Me:
> 
> Ah so.  You believe all knowing is in the software, then I presume.
> And do
> you agree with me, that this software is malleable?  That differing
> programs
> can be loaded than American Online 2.0?  That there is the
> possibillity,
> likelihood and evidence that SOM 1.0 is not the only possible OS the
> cortex
> can operate under?
> 
> I mean, Humankind has a long history, many differing ideas and much
> evidence
> of more sophisticated world-views than the simplistic and easily
> dismissable
> idea that reality is composed of objects to be studied, and there is
> nothing
> else.
> 
> My first introduction to the conflict in worldviews, was when my first
> and
> only living philosophy teacher, G Sessions, quoted the book Little Big
> Man
> on the shock the natives felt when they encountered the European's view
> that
> everything they saw was dead and manipuable.
> 
[Mary]
The software has to conform to the underlying structure of the hardware.
The hardware lays out the basic constraints.  Stay within the constraints
and it's a free for all from there.  Or put another way, you can't grow
tomatoes on the moon unaided.  I think our basic operating constraints
pre-suppose subject-object logic and to overcome that is to violate those
basic constraints.  Mystics achieving nirvana would be an example of a
temporary violation.

There were 100's of Indian tribes with unique cultures in America the day
before Columbus' party made contact.  I've read that many were decimated by
disease long before any follow up visitors got here to record anything about
them.  I believe they all used the same subject-object logic everyone else
does, though.  They do, after all, have the same hardware.  Where they
differ from Europeans is in the forms their religions took - and those forms
probably precluded them from ever developing a sub-obj _metaphysics_
"Intellectual Level" worldview.  I'm not saying anything about who was
better or worse, just saying they took a different path from the one
initiated by Mid-East/European monotheistic cultures.  There's more to this,
but given everything else going on here today, that's enough.


> [John]
> Various philosophers and mystics have fought against that values-free
> metaphysical stance since it arose, but none so effectively and well
> and
> definitively as Pirsig, imo  I'm here to continue that fight and I
> conclude
> others are too.
>
[Mary]
I don't view it as a fight so much as a coaxing? but I do totally agree.
 
[John]
> Even tho, as I put forth in my Objectivism Triumphant post, that it
> seems to
> me to be a losing battle.
> 
> The natives found that out a long time ago.
>
[Mary]
The Intellectual Level has the power to win in the short run, but there's
lots of promise for the long run.  Given the BP spill and such, it seems the
predominant worldview has pooped in its own water bowl.  Maybe some of those
people of "character" the Chinese guy was talking about will even see it?
 

Best,
Mary
> [john]
> PS:  I wanted to add that I liked your derogatory comment about the
> awkward
> and distracting use of the feminine personal pronoun.  Even though I've
> used
> it, it always felt contrived.  ...

[Mary]
Contrived!  Yes.  Thank you for the word.  That sums it up perfectly for me.
At least we aren't stuck with French.  I love the beauty of the French
language but always wondered why everything in it has a gender assignment.
l'ordinateur (computer) I believe is male.  Someone will know.