[MD] A larger system of understanding

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 10 Jul 2010 at 6:52, X Acto wrote:


> On 9 Jul 2010 at 15:39, X Acto wrote:
> 
> > Ron prev;
> > 
> > > What you seem to have trouble understanding is the concept
> > > of self-refferential systems. Which is not qite the same thing
> > > as what Wilber was forwarding.
> > 
> > Platt:
> > Oh, I understand all right -- the box SOM can't escape.  
> > 
> > Ron:
> > Right, when you take certain Objective assumptions to be true,
> > one can not escape. But if one takes value as being true then
> > those contradictions dissolve.
> 
> Platt:
> Not sure what you have in mind, but if you mean that value transcends SOM 
> intellect I agree. 
> 
> Ron:
> This is where the interpretive factor gets kinda sticky. If one takes the tack 
> of
> SOM= the intellectual level, then no. Because it can't. It contradicts it's own 
> assertion.
> SOM is the highest static good and the four levels is all there is. If one does
> take that value transcends the intellectual level then all sorts of twisted
> rationalized arguements arise to support this assertion. It becomes 
> indestinguishable
> from religous rationalized arguements. It becomes a destroyer of the 
> intellectual level.
> It seeks to kill all intellectual patterns. The highest good mind you per SOL.
> The intellect commits suicide looking to transcend to some rationalized state
> thats is indefinable. Sounds like a religion.

[Platt]

Well then you're going to have to deal intellectually with DQ which is 
indefinable. Does acknowledging the existence of that creative force destroy  
intellectual patterns? Does Pirsig rely on some religious-type miracle to round 
out his metaphysics? 

What say you?