Hi Bodvar,
Pleased to get a reply from you on this, indeed. I started again to read Dan
Glovers 'Lilas Child', which comes out to be a 'classic' IMO, and found some
interesting points to 'level-questions', i.e. thoughts about the assertion of
existing fields (such as quantum-physics).
Bodvar wrote:
[...]
to JoVos post:
> > (Old members are yawning at my eagerness, perhaps :-) )
>
> Hi JoVo and MD.
> This old one did not yawn, rather jump with joy at your taking the
> pains to dig ....and finding this "magnum opus" by Magnus :-).
>
> You went on:
> > What problem I do have with the levels, they're those are too rough. I
> > think, that having only four areas or zones to distinguish
> > value-beings and also their complement in mind the intellectual
> > patterns of value, is at least one reason for difficulties to find a
> > reliable assertion of the named (s.a.).
>
> I have problems deciphering the above, particularly this " ......and
> also their complement in mind the intellectual patterns of value ..."
> etc? Do the levels IYO have a mind counterpart and is mind =
> intellect?
Now and then I'm wandering through my archives, sometimes by
'key-words-searching', and dig out goodies like this. What you see here is the
attempt to describe, what exactly has touched me in an article I found, which is
normally some relationship to my ideas such as 'value-being' for the past weeks.
It may be, that those attempts to find a relationship, lead me to a wrong
direction, sometimes.
I will try to explain, what I have had in mind.
While reconsidering my writings, I'm trying to find out if misunderstandings
arise out of language-inabilities, sloppy expression on my part or both,
perhaps.
Well in fact, I do believe that, in a way, the knowledge of mankind (all
knowledge incl.culture, religion,art; see also Marcos and Platts exchange) is
basically what I consider (speaking for me here ;-) ) to be similar to
'intellectual value'. The intellectual level is therefore the level, which
dominates due to intellectual value, although also 'using' the lower levels.
And intellectual value is gained, generally spoken, out of the understanding of
as much as possible the 'world' or the 'universe', wherein classical sciences
(f.e.my studies) are also included. When I say the latter are also included, I
mean by this, in contrast to what we call here SOMish, that they will have
undoubtedly their place in this wholeness of intellectual value, however
presumably a minor one than they have today. When I say 'copy' I refer more or
less to what I have said in my article about 'good theories'. Concerning my use
of the concept 'complement' I find that the use of it has been evoked at least
partly by Chris Loftings hompage and also by some lately read books (Tao and
thelike).
The use of it (complement) was no really thoughtful choice, but the longer I
think about it the more I do like it. Saying 'complement' means ONE PART of the
WHOLE and so implies the existence of another part, i.e. the rest of the whole,
that is the other half, best imagined by the 'Yin and Yang'-symbol. These two
complements, together representing the whole, are two parts of the same
'value-being', the one I have in mind ('mind' - you don't like especially this
word, do you? :-)) ) and the other one, which is outside of me. Those two are
connected to each other in a permanent recursive process; that is necessary,
because everything changes including myself, the observer.
I guess the position of the radical 'constructivists' (?) (philosophers, who
believe all is construction) is not being a serious subject of discussion here.
That may be discussed, where it belongs to, the 'serious' philosophic
discussions amongst intellectuals ;-).
Distinguishing between the 'intellectual pattern of value' and the 'value
being', so the pattern we have build out of the thing and the thing itself, was
born out of my confusion sometimes, derived from discussions about the
'pattern'. Pattern is for me, i.e. in german language, a symbol, or a sign and
also some sort of 'design' for everyday-things .
When I think of 'pattern' translated into german, that is primarily the
'pattern' of say a curtain or a clothing concerning the inspirings it evokes -
we would use 'structure' I guess in german (Is it,Andreas?) to express what is
for you and for Pisig 'pattern' - , but at least not of the thing itself. I
consider it to be important to differntiate between those.
>
> Allow me to take the lectern:
> Ahem. Either are the levels, the whole MOQ, the SOM - everything
> "in the mind" - or mind is a by-product of matter. Jo, don't you see
> that this is the very Subject/Object that the MOQ is supposed to
> replace? I am a little worried that this simple fact is overlooked. The
> fact that new-comers publish their discovery that Pirsig has
> "forgotten" the observer/world (mind/matter) problem is forgivable,
> but we are supposed to know better.
I'm not absolutely sure here, but I guess at this point it must be a
misunderstanding. I mean besides reading the Pirsig books and several others,
the MoQ-forum is my source of understanding at last; my writings have their
roots in this discussion-forum at large.
I guess I can show you my point of view most easiest in one of my 'images' (
yes, my study-mates just have 'loved' those ;-) ).
SOM is an important part of our knowledge, wherein SOM here I consider as a
mechanistically world-view, that has brought mankind incredible progress as well
as (lately) enormous environmental problems. Just to remind you, without those
'technical souls', we - you and me - wouldn't be able to communicate the way we
do today via an world-wide information-network-system, that will bring us (this
my hope!) to a fruitful and peaceful understanding and communication someday.
I mean it is not all bad, only it is not all SOM!.
This SOM, or more precisely, this mechanistically world view is IMO one element
amongst the MoQ, which we try to unify with other (s.a.) fields of human
culture, i.e. intellectual patterns of value.
Would you prefer to see the MoQ and the SOM to be two - distinct from each
other - existing, rivaling intellectual systems, whereof only one can win?
It is somehow right to say so, but one the other hand that would mean to throw
away one important pillar to build the MoQ upon, no doubt one we have to cut to
the proper length first. I mean, this knowledge has been sucessful (more or
less) until today, only today it is no more suficient due to a flaw in ancient
times (Aristotle) which should be corrected with the help of Mr. Robert M.
Pirsigs books, his MoQ that includes SOM nevertheless.
Just as Newtons Physics had shown a flaw in it, which a guy called Einstein was
enabled to
to correct not long ago, a guy called Pirsig has put his finger on one point in
this system of thinking (my point of view!) - the human being - and said, " We
should put more attention on this human being, because in the meantime our
intellectual systems has reached a state of refinement, that makes it necessary
to look for the observer also, the one that CREATES the system, and not only on
his environment. We cannot go on like this forever, because it is nowadays
insufficient"
> Again: The above everything-in-the-mind "double-bend" is the very
> impassè that sent Phaedrus (of ZAMM) on the Quality quest. The
> SOM materialist claims that mind is a matter by-product, while the
> SOM idealist claims that everything is (in the) mind. Of the two the
> idealists have the best case, but the inevitable result is the
> solipsist dead-end: The world our creation! Nothing is real!
>
> And many believe that this is the MOQ position, but NO!!!! This is
> what drove P. insane, but from beyond (what he then called "the
> myth") he experienced that the QUALITY is the source of both
> mind and matter......and so on.
>
> But what good does it do if we re-introduce the SOM inside the
> MOQ by claiming that the static levels have a mind component - or
> an intellect-cum-mind one? If so we are back in the quagmire! No, if
> the MOQ is to stand its ground it's Intellect must ALSO be a
> limited static level, not any all-encompassing mind "containing" the
> other levels.
> (staggering down from the lectern).
In my opinion, the intellectual value pattern are in fact that knowledge that is
necessary to understand the 'world' to be sucessful at last. I mean this
understanding it is, what MAKES the 'intellectaul level' in the end, isn't it?
Besides it consists also of the lower levels.
[...]
> Don't take my speech as an rebuttal JoVo. If you find the
> dimension analogy good, then perhaps "your stuff" is not so
> somish as I made it sound.
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Bo
I hope, Bodvar, that this has cleared up my position at least a bit, but because
this is a complex issue to discuss and to express, there may be still some
points left.
I would be wishing to discuss those, if that is the case. I'm aware of the fact,
that one could discuss for ages about the relation between the world outside and
the world inside.
Thanks for reading,
wish you well,
JoVo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:53 BST