[MD] A larger system of understanding

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 10 Jul 2010 at 14:35, 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?
> 
>   
> Ron:
> SOL seems to answer "yes".

[Platt]
You say otherwise?