Hi Denis and Group.
You said:
> Before I went on holidays we were having a discussion that I'd like to
> resume now, if you don't mind. You might have to back log a bit, it
> goes back to the end of august/beginning of september (where I took
> off).
> So, I'll go back to your last post on this thread.
OK...if we are able to switch to this pre-historic thread? I'll have to
amputate your most well-edited post a bit as not make it overly
long.
> So, IF we accept that social patterns exist in the animal realm (as
> opposed to the human one ; nothing to do with the Bio-level), and that
> biological intelligence is the "machine-code" of these social
> patterns, then the next jump of levels is from the social level to
> what I've called the "mythological" level (as a bridge between animal
> societies and the greek birth of Intellect; see my post of August).
> This latter can then use Language (the human mode of communication : a
> social pattern of value) as its "machine-code". And then Socrates and
> Plato can use a subset of Language (dialectics) to create Intellect.
Yes, I think we can speak about rudimentary social patterns with
the primates - not merely those bio-related of protecting/feeding the
offspring, but tribes and clan-like colonies. If we could zip the
million years development from "Lucy" in the Rift Valley to modern
humankind age we would have seen an increase in these social
patterns ...with language the turning point. But naturally in this time
scale even the Cro-Magnons are (like in the one-year evolution
metaphor) a few minutes to twelve!
> As you can see, each level spawns from a subset of the previous one,
> and so by an unfortunate reduction I lumped all these into the term
> AWARENESS. As stated, the final product (Intellect) is far from being
> all-inclusive, since it is a subset of a subset of a subset of
> biological intelligence (itself a subset of the biological level,
> which is a subset of the inorganic realm). It's like a russian doll,
> if you prefer, where every smaller doll is more precious than the
> previous one.
Exactly.
> This misunderstanding (hopefully) dissipated, let's go to the rest of
> the post...
> I should have said : "because the notion of an objective OR SUBJECTIVE
> world has already been destroyed". But we were (and still are) in
> agreement here.
We are indeed.
> Except, perhaps, for your last sentence : it is the MOQ which is a
> part of Quality, not the reverse. Pirsig makes it clear that the MOQ
> is an intellectual way of dividing Quality that leads to an
> intellectual map of (static) "reality". The levels themselves only
> describe Static Quality (the Conceptually Known, as opposed to Dynamic
> Quality that is the Conceptually Unknown).
This is a subtle point. P had his Quality insight - first - and then
started to work out a metaphysics around it, which saw its final
form in LILA. In it the MoQ and Quality are one and the same ....at
least, I really can't see how one can speak about a Quality before
the MoQ. Also, we must not forget the enormity of a metaphysics
(in this context) you have before agreed to the limited nature of the
intellectual level (in contrast to the awareness-like SOM-intellect)
It's the highest static level admittedly, yet static.
> You're describing SOM's blindness to value. I'm only saying the same
> thing from a MOQ perspective, where the SOM analogy between
> subjectivity and "unreal" is clearly a moral judgment (even if SOMists
> would deny it since morals are subjective). That's the difficulty of
> speaking about SOM in MOQist terms : both sides speak about things
> that have LOW VALUE, from the other point of view. Morals are
> subjective for SOMists, Objectivity/Subjectivity are low-value
> intellectual patterns for MOQists. So of course they accuse each other
> of misrepresenting them.
This require great concentration not to loose track of, but I agree.
This formulation "....from a MOQ perspective where the SOM
analogy between subjectivity and "unreal" is clearly a moral
judgement." is backing up the notion that distinguishing between
subjectivity and objectivity is a great moral achievement ... The
Intellectual level in my opinion!
> No, it isn't. If the MOQ is a intellectual pattern of value, then it
> is a part of Quality, subject to growth and evolution, and able to
> become a better intellectual pattern.
> If it is equated with Quality,
> there is nowhere else to go, since Quality is everything. There is no
> "separateness" between the MoQ as an intellectual pattern and Quality,
> no unbridgeable gap like the one that existed between mind and matter.
OK, your reasoning is valid, but see the later [X] part .
About the SQ/DQ unbridgeability. Pirsig removed the fundamental
divide from mind/matter to the more probable dynamic/static place,
but it is still a duality. I don't think it's useful to deny that.
> The MoQ is firmly linked to the process of moral evolution of the
> levels, and just as firmly linked to Quality, since we have all been
> "touched" by its DQ when we read it... or we wouldn't be here. :)
Well said, but this metaphysical divide doesn't mean that we can't
be dynamically influenced. The older static levels can't give birth to
any new development, but (as I visualize the MoQ universe)
Intellect "borders" on to the ambient dynamism and is where the
action is.
> Because you seem to forget that you're only speaking. That whatever
> you're typing on that email software of yours, it is still a pattern
> of intellectual value, and not a pattern of "moqtual" value or a
> pattern of Pure Quality value.
An aside here. I saw Marco starting "lecturing" Roger Riskybiz
about ...the trouble with you Americans, and Roger retorting
(humorously): "The trouble with you Italians ... Nah, lets not resort
to THAT .....etc." You, Denis, will see that this argument leads
nowhere. If my statements are mere intellectualism, your own are
and soon EVERYTHING is just hot air. Naturally, if the Quality is
an outgrowth of Intellect it will build on Intellect's value and will be
expressed as an "idea".
> I'm aware I'm grossly exaggerating what you're saying, but since I'm
> still not sure WHAT exactly you're saying, you can hardly blame me,
> can you ?
No, naturally not :-).
> NB : OTOH, the fact I don't "get it" might mean I'm REALLY operating
> at a lower level... or that you're not making sense. Choices, always
> choices... ;)
Right
> As you've often said, a lower level is always blind to the upper one.
> And idle speculation is not my forte... Moral evolution IS possible,
> but since it'll grow out of DQ, it will surely come out as a surprise,
> no ? :)
Not entirely as a surprise. All levels start as a pattern of the former,
but when it begin to assert itself it isn't recognized as good
..principally.
> I cannot remember if it was Imre Lakatos of Thomas Kuhn (physicists
> working in the field of epistemology) who made the remark, but one
> stated that often when a important change came in the scientific
> field, there was no real way of comparing the two paradigms because
> the questions they asked, the presuppositions they made and the axioms
> they worked on had so little in commun that any comparison or talk of
> "filiation" was pure bogus. For example, the notion of "forces", so
> prevalent in Newton's paradigm, has been (according to Bertrand
> Russel) invalidated by Relativity. Relativity does NOT "include
> Newton's Law", they just talk about the same phenomenon from vastly
> different points of view. Under Newton, gravity was a force, under
> Einstein it is a property of space-time (for a vastly more
> comprehensive discussion about his subject, I can only direct you to
> 'The ABC of Relativy', of B. Russell - a great book).
It was Thomas Kuhn I believe, and I have Russell's book - and a
few more on relativity - once a great interest of mine. Do you know
the relatively (!) new "E=MC2" (I forgot the author)
> The MOQ is such a Copernican Revolution, in my view. There are, as
> I've stated above, no real ways of bridging the gap. It is a question
> of beliefs, where no one can be sure of having the right answer. It is
> a question of whether or not you "feel" that one set of axioms has
> more value than the other, and whether or not one solves more problems
> than the previous one did. But "Truth" is definitely out by the
> window.
Agreed. There is no way to bridge them ....except making the SOM
the intellectual level of the MoQ, but so many seem to want to see
the MoQ in a SOM light ...not least the one mentioned below ....
> While some, like John Beasley, would have prefered him to forge a new
> mystic path (I know, I know, another simplification), rather than fall
> back into intellectualism, his efforts were still a moral action.
> Forging a better set of intellectual thoughts is nothing to scoff at,
> in my book. And perhaps that decision will ultimately do more good
> than a straight dive into mysticism would have.
> [X] Bo, would you care to explain to me why it is allowed here but
> not, to take your point of view, at the intellectual level ? Don't you
> see that this is still the intellectual level ? In mathematics, for
> example, you're allowed to define the set of the sets including other
> sets. Therefore, the set you've defined is a part of itself. I don't
> see why the MOQ containing itself as an intellectual pattern of value
> is any more problematic. Recursivity has been a tool of the
> intellectual level for quite some time, now.
My mathematics is not much and maybe I HAVE produced
something that sounds contradictory to you, but the gist of it is:
The assertion that the MoQ is an intellectual pattern creates - to
my sense of logic - the impossibility of it being a part of a lesser
part of itself. (Agree?) Now my proposition (that it is a growing 5th
level) may pose a logical loop, but all all-encompassing systems
are themselves ...no?
This time I appeal to you to examine this point thoroughly.
> OK, time to earn my salary, now. I hope you won't grumble at the
> thought of restarting and old (but I hope, not stale) conversation.
> I'm not despairing we'll be able to get at the root of that SOLAQI
> thing. I'm still seeing some good in it (greater precision in defining
> the social and intellectual levels, for instance), but some
> inconsistencies still exist, IMHO.
No grumbling at all
Sincerely
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
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 - 16:01:34 BST