John, Bard, Lawry & Group.
First of all I wouldn't dream of asking you to leave John, to the
contrary, you keep this discussion going by being a "Devil's
Advocate" in a most gentle way. I must tell: At another
writer/thinker page I kept dropping words about Pirsig (like you do
about Wilber) enough to rouse the interest of a very competent
participant (hi Richard if you are reading). He was much impressed
by your writings and shocked when I criticize them. So, your style
and abilities don't lack, but in spite of that you never got the gist
the MoQ.....in my opinion.
The Bard talks about a different ways to Quality, but if this doesn't
include the MoQ it raises serious problems. It's just this that
Denis and I have been blowing our minds over in recent posts. I
backed down, but now see my stupidity in doing so :-(
There are postulates that can't be violated without destroying a
system. When Euclids fifth was undermined it was the end of his
geometry (as THE geometry), and when the ether was disproved it
was the end of the Newtonian physics as THE physics. So the
Quality=Reality metaphysical postulate is crucial for the MoQ.
the Bard's says:
> It is truly within the spirit of Pirsig's writings that we
> encourage different views as they may open our eyes to further
> understanding of Quality.
All right, but if a philosopher doesn't observe - or make the initial
quality switch - he/she is not exploring Quality.
John again:
> Now there may also be a meta-valuation which asserts that apart from
> our own sense of value, which Pirsig says is fundamental, there is a
> metaphysics which is 'better' than other metaphysics. In my opinion
> this understanding is dependant upon a Wilber-like view of things,
> and is not fundamentally consistent with a Pirsig-like view. Pirsig
> argues that we experience 'quality' directly, and that the static
> quality of a metaphysics is only the statically latched residue of
> dynamic experiences of value which cannot be expresssed in words.
> There is no way, in a Pirsigian world, for a metaphysics (as a
> pattern of ideas) to take precedence over the dynamic experience of
> quality. When you tell me I am wrong, you imply that when I use what
> you see as SOM language or concepts that I am somehow perverting the
> truth according to Pirsig. I assert that I am in fact more attuned
> to Pirsig than you in this regard, in that I am responding to
> quality where I find it, whereas you are telling me that if I
> experience it or describe it in terms you judge outside the MOQ I
> must be wrong.
See my above and besides, there would then be a meta-valuation
to that one and another ...ad infinitum.
> I find a great deal of value in Wilber, and I am annoyed by your ad
> hominen attacks on him as somehow New Age, and therefore
> discredited. I can assure you that most New Age people, if I can be
> allowed to generalise, are very unhappy with Wilber, who gives them
> a very hard time.
With Pirsig I finally found the SOM spell broken and react
automatically when this aspect of Pirsig's is ignored. I don't find
any confrontation with subject/object thinking in Wilber's works.
> The second point I wish to make is that all language is by its very
> nature from the SOM level. A noun is a word used to identify a
> discrete object or concept, etc (it 'refers to a person, place or
> thing', says my dictionary). It implies boundedness. Nouns are
> constructs of our minds, which are themselves fashioned within our
> cultures and languages. This does not make them 'wrong', (after all,
> "Good is a noun"), but it is important to exercise care with them. I
> loved the quote from Wittgenstein, 'philosophy is the fight against
> the bewitchment of minds by language', that Angus provided recently.
"....language is by its very nature from the SOM level". You are
right John (no sarcasm) if you mean a Q level? And if so it must be
the intellectual level - can't be anything else - and seen from there
everything is subjective/objective split - language no exception -
which is regarded as a subjective counterpart of objective reality
.....until one starts examining things (from a SOM pov that is)
closely and find that reality is a CONSTRUCT OF OUR MIND, the
very insight of P. of ZAMM that lead to the Quality insight.
> This makes writing about 'quality' very difficult, in that Pirsig
> rightly asserts that the Quality he is talking about is unbounded,
> indefinable, and hence not graspable in language.
The MoQ says that DQ is indefinable, but about the static layers
much can be said.
> Actually, all
> language shares this problem, but ignoring that for the moment,
> Pirsig is struggling with the same problem experienced by mystics,
> (of which he may or may not be one,) which is to convey experience
> in words. As Wilber points out, the problem is not inherent in the
> words, but in the mismatch between different person's experience.
Remember that Pirsig regards the mystics as the most formidable
opponents (p.66) - so he very much recognizes the "words
everything/nothing" hitch, but in the MoQ language is no big deal.
At some point in time the most advanced species made this step,
but it was no sudden thing from grunts to discussing philosophy!.
It was very much like the gorilla Koko who was able to convey
messages by way of signs - even abstractions.
(I now fetch the last paragraph of your message up here to make it
more relevant)
> But I go beyond you when I assert that language is not mired in
> objectivity, but is actually able to transcend it, provided there is
> shared experience between those using the language.
Right, this is the first part of the Q insight: Language is not mired
in objectivity
> This becomes
> quite evident when you examine how each of us learns language. Helen
> Keller learned her first word when her teacher held her hand under
> the tap and then tapped out on her arm a code which became Keller's
> word 'water'. Even blind and deaf, she could link the experience
> with the symbol, and use it in future in novel situations.
I know the Helen Keller story. This is naturally way beyond the
Koko stage, as a human being HK had the capacity to connect the
WRITTEN sign with the concept. The next stage for Helen Keller
was when she discovered that concepts could be manipulated by
grammar and syntax and thus form "unheard of" realities ...and
when this was completed (back then) the Q- EVOLUTION had the
vehicle it needed to ride out of the social - onto the Intellectual
level.
> I wonder
> how long it took her to find that by tapping this code she could get
> a drink of water?
Seriously, I think that even Koko rather early found that by making
the water sign she could have a drink, but the fact that the signs
themselves could produce a reality of their own was beyond her.
> We read between the lines. And one way in which we
> do this is by reading Pirsig.
The most simple "signs" - bared fangs and such - could hardly be
misunderstood, but the more complex the signs the wider the
range of interpretations snarls, and at the stage we know it there
is a lot of reading between lines.
> How does one comprehend the MOQ, which
> purports not to be SOM bound.
If SOM is a Q-level - Intellect - the MoQ must somehow be a 5th
level of it's own system and the relationship with its parent the
same as between all other levels.
LAWRY said:
> Many thanks for this, Bo. Most helpful summary.
> I know there has been consideration of a fifth level here and
> elsewhere. Could you summarize how you see that question?
you will see from the above that I regard the Quality idea as an
intellectual pattern that has started searching for foothold beyond
the Intellect, hardly any established 5th level exactly yet .... There
has been many fancy suggestions, super-computation, world-wide
web ...and so on, but my suggestion is as simple as sketched
here.
Too long as always.
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 - 16:01:38 BST