Hi Rob,
Excuse me for the flippant answer of last night, I had just had a long day
of work, and was generally speaking "in a baaad mood". ;)
Your post deserves better than that (even though my answer is still valid),
so I'll try to rectify and give some depth to it.
>Denis,
> So why are we debating about whose right here if the whole discussion is
>about Quality?
Rob, you are under a misconception here. We are not debating about who is
right, but about which answer is of highest quality. "You're wrong" means
"You're talking bullshit", but is generally more polite, and better
accepted, socially speaking... ;o)
> I think I see where we disagree though. Concepts. Did
>concepts only emerge at the intellectual level? What about a king? That's
>not an intellectual idea, it's a social one according our definition of
>social, and the concept of a tree, the tree you just thought of only exists
>as a concept in your head. Sure it's a simple concept, but it's still a
>concept. What about the concept of danger, or hunger, or the concept of
red?
>Social concepts definitely exist, money, the stock market, religions,
>tribes, countries. The intellectual level cannot be defined as simply made
>of concepts, all of our existence is interpretations of reality, concepts
>dancing in our head.
Here, my last answer still stands. It's all intellectual patterns, Rob. Not
*only* intellectual patterns, but once we get talking, it's all that's left.
As you aptly describe, a king is a social pattern, but is also an
intellectual one. There is the social position of king, and the concept of
"king-ness", if you will.
Since each level support the higher ones, those "intellectual values" are
supported and can only exist if the lower levels exists. Without society,
biology or inorganic matter and energy, there is no "king-ness". If you
destroy the lower, the higher disappears with it.
So this concept is only the emergent part of an iceberg of value patterns,
but it is the only one that our intellect can manipulate. Bo often says that
what it really does is to put all four levels in the intellectual one. I
understand, and up to a point I agree with him.
I liken all intellectual activity as a current going upward from the
inorganic to the intellectual, with concepts as the "bubbles" floating on
the top of this deep "reality pond" we live in. The bubbles aren't the pond,
but they are part of it. If we say they are the pond, we are mistaken.
They're only *the result* of the current in the pond, the visible part of an
evolutive Quality spanning all levels. If you say "inorganic patterns of
value exists independently of whether or not there is an intellect to name
them as such", you are living in the map, not in the pond. Of course, you
*do* live in pond anyway, but you're not aware of it, since you think the
map *is* the pond. And so anything not in the map is happily ignored.
But what "exist", what's the *real* Reality, is Quality. If you want to get
your head out of the map and experience it "directly", read ZAMM and follow
the advice there. 'Cruising Blues' in the forum section, also offers a way
(it's expensive, though ;). If you're into eastern mysticism, Zen offers
some practical advice and methods, and if you feel more adventurous, you can
try to go looking for your own practice.
But do not, even for a moment, be fooled by the notion that a new metaphysic
can put you in touch with the fundamental ground-stuff of the universe. No
metaphysics, no science, no story is able to do that. Not even the MOQ.
The MOQ, just as hard or soft sciences, or just as any religion, is a story
about Reality/Quality. Its originality comes from the fact that for the
first time, included in the story is the self-reflexive comment that the MOQ
was a *relative* truth, a story, a fiction. I do not say fiction in the
sense of "illusory", I say it in the sense of "the conceptual part of
Quality". The "mapping", self-reflexive part of Reality that participates in
and gives meaning to the whole shebang.
> How should we define our levels then? I say their values.
Good idea.
>The biological level is defined by survival,
Reproduction would be another candidate, IMHO. Survival is kind of a
negative drive, it's more about "not dying" than doing anything really
progressive.
I think all levels are defined by a positive and negative value. A dynamic
and static aspect, IOW. The static aspect defines the struggle not to fall
back into the previous level, and the dynamic one its drive to expand and
dominate the whole.
>social level by conforming(for lack of a better word),
Again, it's the negative aspect of preserving the static latch and not
falling back into bestiality. I'd think its positive aspect is defined by
status. Status is the big drive to dominate the whole.
>the intellectual level by truth.
This time I disagree. Truth, understood in the SOLAQI interpretation means
SOM truth. That is, Absolute Truth. And SOLAQI is simply, as my last post
indicated, Absolute Truth in disguise. Worse than that, it is dogma in
disguise. The Word of Quality, which is identical with "the Word of God". It
is low-quality because totally devoid of any Dynamic element.
The dynamic aspect of the intellectual level is, IMHO, meaning. Its static
aspect might be something like individuality, or even... the Self, the ego.
Just a thought, though.
>That definition of how the
>levels are defined is key to the my interpretation of the MOQ. The values,
>the number one quality ideal for that level, separates it as a level.
>According to that definition, the MOQ has it's own quality ideal, quality
>itself, and is thus a different level.
>
>>It's more than that : Quality has REDEFINED truth. Now truth simply means
>>"of high intellectual quality". And that's enough. Whenever you used
>>"truth", you can replace it with "high intellectual quality", without
>>changing anything else.
>>And it fits. If you think it doesn't, please explain why.
>
>I agree, just as the concept of truth redefined what is "good" prior to the
>intellectual revolution.
Wrong, social good has not been redefined by SOM. It has been ignored,
period. And on this one, I've got Pirsig firmly on my side.
> A new paradigm itself encompasses and redefines
>that which came before it, just as the idea of absolute truth redefined the
>world.
And if you read this sentence enough times, you will see how "paradigm"
means a change of the dominant *Intellectual* reality, and not a change in
level. Just draw a parallel with the Copernican revolution. You'll also
understand that inorganic patterns don't care one whit whether you call them
substance, atoms, or inorganic patterns. The operative word, in your
sentence, is "redefined". If that's not an intellectual operation, I don't
know what is.
>No longer was it "good" to listen to the popular opinion of how the
>earth is flat, it was better to PROVE it was round.
The Ptolemaic system was an extremely complicated theory that had a lot of
empirical verification for it. The fact that people knew the earth was flat
was a result of this theory, just as the fact you know it's round is the
result of scientists telling you so. Popular opinion wasn't what Copernicus
was fighting against. He was fighting the *scholars* of his time.
The amount of empirical verification for the "round" theory is now too big
for us to go back to Ptoleme, but when Copernicus started, he had very
little "facts" to go on. OTOH, his theory was simpler, more elegant and
explained a few of the "weirder" parts of the Ptolemaic system. The reason
for the shift was an aesthetical judgment, not a proof.
It's not "better to prove", because it is *impossible* to prove anything
beyond the shadow of a doubt. Do not take my word for it, read some Karl
Popper. Only tautological truths are absolute.
>The only problem with
>replacing truth with "high intellectual quality" is that it is meaningless
>to me unless you define "intellectual quality" differently from any other
>type of quality.
People on this forum have proposed plenty of ways to point to that moon.
Harmony, internal coherence, elegance, economy, explanative power,
consistence with empirical verification, and too many others to mention or
remember.
>Intellectual quality is different from Social quality or
>Biological quality, but how? As I proposed, because of the value ideal that
>each level represents.
Exact, social quality is represented by justice (which regulates "fair
behaviour") and intellectual quality by the ideals exposed above, thus
ensuring "good" status (one fairly obtained) and "good" meaning (one
harmonious, coherent, etc.)
>
>> You see, if anything contradicts or criticizes the MOQ, in the SOLAQI
>>interpretation you can ALWAYS accuse it of being "intellectual", and
>>therefore SOMish, and therefore morally inferior. It makes the MOQ totally
>>impervious to attacks, criticisms, or revisions. You have, in effect,
>>another religion which claims that all truths are relative EXCEPT ITS OWN,
>>which is beyond criticism because it is QUALITY. And since Quality cannot
be
>>discussed, then of course the MOQ (SOLAQI version) cannot be put in
>>question. And if you try to refute this preposterous claim, then of course
>>you can be accused of not understanding Quality, which should be obvious
to
>>everyone, but apparently not for you, poor soul...
>
>The problem with this argument is assuming that a rigid rules system (of a
>society presumably) would be what emerges out of the MOQ framework, and
that
>it would be challenged on an intellectual level (i.e. whether or not
>something is true).
No, that is not the problem. The problem is that on the intellectual level a
SOLAQI MOQ cannot be challenged, period. Therefore, it is a DEAD END.
Nothing can challenge it, because anything exterior, and therefore different
cannot be recognized as being of Quality, whatever its intellectual quality.
It could be a very-high level intellectual quality, but since SOLAQI is
(supposedly, and IMO, falsely) at the "Quality level", it is to be
disregarded. Whatever words and ideas you put together, if they are
different from SOLAQI they cannot be at this so-called "Quality level". I
mean, on what criterion would a sentence be a "Quality pattern of value" ?
If you can define that for me, and if even one sentence of my invention
manages to pass the test, I'll agree that there is a level above Intellect
and that SOLAQI is of higher quality.
>So presumably you could change the system by showing something to be of
>higher quality than the MOQ. It sounds impossible now, in our system that
>says quality is subjective, but if quality were accepted as true, then
>simply showing it would be enough, the system would immediately recognize
>the quality.
Ha. Ha. Ha.
"Just state what you have to say. We'll decide if it's better or not,
without resorting to any kind of justification at all." And you're going to
tell me you cannot smell the dogma, here ? Just read what you've written :
"if quality were accepted as true".
IOW, join the new Absolute ! It looks a bit like good old Absolute Truth,
but it's far easier to make the bitch work for you, this time ! You don't
even need to justify yourself !
>The system isn't impervious to truth as you suggested either, the MOQ
>believes truth to be of very high quality. If you could prove that MOQ was
>bad on any one of it's levels, it would hurt the MOQ more than SOM, which
we
>can only changed by proving it to be not true.
What does it mean : "If you could prove that MOQ was bad on any one of it's
levels" ? Give me an example.
It sounds a lot like, "if one of the sub-levels theories is bad, we'll fix
it." Well, thank you, but SOM's already been doing that for the last 2500
years, folks.
You seem to confuse theories that unfold from metaphysical premises and
metaphysical premises themselves. SOM cannot be changed "by proving it to be
not true", it cannot even be DISCUSSED. It is invisible, like the ocean to
the fish.
Once it's visible, you've changed perspective and landed in MOQ territory :
an intellectual realm of relative truth, where ideas are ranked by their
intellectual quality. Where once existed true and false, now good and bad
have taken their place, discriminating ideas according to their quality (or
we are not in the MOQ but in the "yeah, whatever..." realm).
I this realm, even the MOQ is a relative truth, but one of high
*intellectual* quality. Until something better comes along, of course.
>According to my belief, the MOQ will not be the end of history. But I know
>how the next metaphysics will replace it, by showing something has quality,
>that really shouldn't (according to the MOQ). Similar to proving quality
>exists when it really shouldn't (according to SOM).
If Pirsig had "proven" anything, believe me, we would know. His only answer
is still "by the harmony it produces". It is a worthy answer, but nothing
has been proven. You do not defeat metaphysics premises with their own
weapons. Mainly, you win when the opposition dies of old age. ;)
Stay good until then.
Denis
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 - 16:01:41 BST