Hi JoVo
You wrote:
> Now I'd wish to express my position more clearly as I think, Bodvar,
> that I've lost the thread where I talked about an image to illustrate
> a comparism between what I expect you have in your mind about the
> relation between MoQ and SOM and what I have in mine. (And me talking
> about cracks in other peoples posts, ... well? ;-) )
Thanks for your steadfastness in pursuing this thread ...and for not
being annoyed by my "speeches".
> To imagine what I want to underline you draw for the JoVo-model a big
> circle, labeled 'MoQ', and inside a small circle, labeled SOM. Also
> included in the MoQ-circle is the observer, and everything inside this
> big MoQ-circle is connected via arrows directing in BOTH ways. What in
> my opinion is showing the classical SOM-position, would look much
> different. One circle above, labeled 'SOM' containing the observer
> pointing with an arrow to another circle below which is labeled
> 'world'. I guess you will agree with me, that this is qualitatively
> much different from my model, isn't it, Bodvar? So no worries on this
> part.
I have duly drawn diagrams and understand your position ... as far
as diagrams go. A picture is supposed to say more than a
thousand words, but is almost too crisp for these all-encompassing
systems.
> Your description of the relationship between MoQ and SOM seem to look
> like this: Two circles of different size - in which you may choose
> their diameters just how strong you value the might of each - labeled
> 'MoQ' on the right side, and 'SOM' on the left side pointing at each
> other with a single arrow for each of it. Those two arrows are meant
> to symbolize the rivaling relationship against each other. Below them
> there could be the 'world'-circle (?) but how is it connected to the
> rivaling intellectual systems?
My SOM/MOQ relationship is - as the oldies know unto vomiting -
that the intellectual level corresponds to the subject/object division
itself. A diagram of that I leave for you to draw :-)
> I just don't know where I should put
> the 'observer'-set? (I see right now in this moment that I haven't
> understood your model/consideration quite right, so I stop at this
> point) Is it roughly ok, the way I described it, Bo?
All difficulties with the MOQ stems from the "observer" root (ref. the
"trouble" list at the MF) which in turn is due to the subject/object
metaphysics not having been "correctly buried" ....not found its
right place within the MOQ. See lower down at the relativity
analogy.
> 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.
Yes, intellect dominates unto exclusion of the other levels, but then
it is only in the MOQ that the intellect is a level. In SOM it is
perception itself.
> > 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? :-))
I agree with you here. Hope to clarify this later on. Regarding the
term "mind" I don't like it, but only in the mind/matter sense. Will
return to that too..
> I think you would agree when I state, that at least there IS something
> outside from which we receive information and what gets canalized and
> sorted through by means of our intellectual tools, yes?
OK here it is. Something out there. You know Relativity's notion
that objects distorts space and the objection that if so it means
that there is a straight space .... which is not the idea of Relativity
at all. This is due to the mixing of Newtonian physics into Relativity
something that can't be done except going by way of equations
(the Lorentz transformation).
My opinion is that the MOQ is a metaphysical counterpart to
Relativity with SOM its "newtonian" equivalent. The metaphysical
"something out there" equals the "straight space" and the
confusion is due to bringing somish notions into the MOQ without
transformation. I am conceited enough to think that my SOL idea is
the Lorentz equivalent in this analogy.
> Pirsigs point
> now is, IMO, that this information runs through some processing of our
> intellectual toolkit, but while doing so some of this data gets lost.
Intellect is "reason-perception", but there is perception at all levels.
"Sensing" at the bio. level, "emotions" at the social one. This
(interaction-sensation-emotion-reason) is not found in LILA, but a
useful deduction IMO.
> What gets lost is not only dependant on our sensory organs (expanded
> by means of technical appliances)but much more those pieces of data
> that has no VALUE! No microscope, no microphone, no computer and no
> seismographic appliance, etc. is able to help avoiding this loss. You
> can only measure what you expect to measure. Didn't Pirsig say in Lila
> "...data is only data..." (no quotation!)?
Data in the MOQ isn't something from an objective world directly to
a mind - but something that progress up through the value scale.
Biology makes inorganic data (value) into sensation, while Sociality
(just invented that) brings the inorg-bio aggregate to the emotion
plane and Intellect - finally - transforms the inorg-bio-socio
aggregate to reason. The scientist peering at instruments isn't a
mind-in-a-jar "observer" receiving pure data from nature.
> I hope I made my concept visible with the above at this point. I don't
> want to reintroduce the pure SOM-stand but I
> believe that we cannot
> simply drop it at all (SOM). In fact it has to be corrected and it has
> to be integrated, that is also my point of view. I cannot help but due
> to the fact that my studies are consisting of basically classical
> logic or better what we would call SOM, it may well be possible the
> it's influence is visible in my writings.
JoVo, I love you!!!! You are absolutely RIGHT here. If anything has
bothered me is that we can't drop the subject/object (or "reason" in
my book) value. But the usual notion of SOM as one intellectual
pattern and the MOQ another did not work for me (those two can't
co-exist at the same level) however, viewing Q-intellect as the
(value of the) S/O division and then the Quality Metaphysics as
some movement beyond Intellect started to grow on me and still
does.
Back to your "complement" passage above. Now if the Intellect as
subject/object reason is understood one sees that it's very nature
is complementary and notoriously splits experience into two. I will
not spoil our perfect rapport by launching into too much explanation
here, but hope we are in general agreement. I spoke about not
liking "mind" in the S/O metaphysical sense, but as the
complement at one static level of the MOQ ....no problem.
> Now I hope I have convinced you, that I haven't lost my way to much,
> have I? :-)
You haven't lost your way at all. This was really encouraging.
Btw. From what book is the countdown thing?
Bo
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 - 16:00:54 BST