[MD] Relativism

[X Acto]

Bodvar
24 May

Ron wrote: 
> What I fail to understand is what greater explainitory power it brings
> to science or as you like to call it, the intellectual level. How does
> SOL provide greater explainitory power to science? Bodvar can never
> answer this question, he usually insists that MoQ is reality and that
> DQ/SQ IS the fundemental split. 

Bodvar:
I have done nothing BUT try to explain the power of the SOL 
interpretation over the last ten years. However it adds no extra power 
to the intellectual level or to science, but to the MOQ when the 
intellectual level is seen in its proper SOM role. 

Ron:
But how is this useful? how do we apply this to our lives? if it adds no
more explainitory power to the intellectual level, what good is it?
If it doesent improve our lives it's useless.

Bodvar
The non-SOL-ists still cling to some SOM-like "intellect" where ideas 
reside, oblivious of Pirsig having refuted it. Anyway, the resolutions of 
the platypis that LILA promises are lame because they are based on 
the said mind-intellect (that Pirsig later rejected). For instance the 
mind/body enigma where he says that it is due to the missing social 
level between "mind" and "body". We see here that he equates the 
4th. level with "mind" and the 1 st. & 2 nd. with "body", but how the 3rd. 
level helps isn't clear.  

The MOQ does dissolves all platypis by the S/O distinction being seen 
as the 4th. level's value. This in the same sense that (Newtonian) 
physics dissolved the Ancient Greek physics' paradoxes. You know 
"Achilles and the Turtle" example? Xenon argued logically that Achilles 
never could overtake a turtle if it was given a head start. We smile at 
this but it vas not until Newton and Leibnitz that this problem was - 
again - not solved but dissolved. 

Until the MOQ people couldn't find out how mental thoughts could act 
upon the physical body, the fact that it happened before their eyes did 
not help much. The MOQ makes this problem dissolve because the 
thought/body (mind/matter) distinction only exist on the intellectual 
level .... IS the intellectual level.

Ron:
> How does MoQ dissolve those paradoxes? by making subject and object
> static, correct?

Yes by seeing that what we call thoughts does not take place in some 
mental compartment called "mind" different from the real world, but 
that this distinction is the static intellectual level's VALUE. 
d no longer sure of d 
> If both subject and object are static, 

Subjects and objects came to be very late in the intellectual level's 
development towards becoming SOM. It all began (as told in ZAMM) 
with the early Greek thinkers beginning to look for something eternal - 
imperishable, they saw that people, animals, everything were subject 
to change, decay and death ... and no longer trusting the mythological 
(social) explanation. They called it "eternal principles" and this resulted 
in the first grand principle - TRUTH - which necessarily required an 
Untrue counterpoint, and the first SOM "embryo" was conceived. From 
then on the question was WHAT is true and what is false ... need I 
lecture  ... at least it ended with Aristotle declaring "Substance" to be 
the true part and "Form" the false - short-lived - one. And ZAMM says 
the modern SOM is born.     

Ron:
So says Bodvar's interpretation. 

> how does this differ from the Objective notion that thoughts are
> biologically explainable, Indeed, Subject IS object. 

If you refer to my assertion that thinking - intelligence - emerged with 
brain?  OK, from intellect's mind/matter premises - AKA SOM - we will 
insist that all neural activity goes on at the subjective plane, but the 
biological level has no S/O so this has no meaning, a dog or a bird 
have no inkling of their manipulation of symbols is subjective, nor have 
we when all levels except the biological are disconnected  - when 
sleeping and dreaming we don't know that we dream. So again the 
mind/matter distinction exists only at the intellectual level. It's an 
immense static value but disaster as existence's fundament - as SOM!

And this is a much as I can manage.

Ron:
But you did'nt explain how your theory is different than objective materialism,
all you did was confirm it using your own terms. You did'nt explain how this
has greater explainitory power. I'm not sure what you just tried to explain.
Sounds like a lot of rationalized rhetorical positioning.