XCTO (Dave) and Debaters
Nice to see you again. Also nice to read your kind words about
some member's good behaviour ...and see myself included among
them. I haven't always kept my path clean, in it's time I released
the affair that caused the split-up, but we can't be too tame if the
discussion is to go on. For me age has started to show - I am not
always following up on posts; answering those who may have
addressed me; acknowledging new arrivals, but - worst of all -I
have become cemented in my special view of the MoQ. As you
have noticed it's the SOL-interpretation keeps me going, you
comment on it in a constructive way. At the present time there's
only a couple of debaters who agree with me (Rob), Squonk
hesitatingly.
You said:
> When you first proposed your theory, I argued against your SOLAQI
> on the simple grounds that IF the entirety of the Q-Intellect
> Level is Subject Object Logic (SOL) THAN any pattern of thought
> that is not SOL is not really a member of Q-Intellect.
A most natural conclusion.
> The point here is "which level
> do these patterns of thought fit into?" Are they Social Level?
> Biological Level? Inorganic?
"Thinking" it's intimately connected with language, so the question
of where "nonSOL-thinking" belongs is clearly the social level.
Language was the social pattern that became the "carbon" of
Intellect, but is still a social pattern so a lot of "thinking" is
invested in social affairs.
> According to Pirsig all patterns of value
> fit into these levels somewhere. Taking Dave's and my own ideas
> about what it means to be part of the Intellectual Level, I want to
> say that there are ideas outside SOL that are part of the
> Q-Intellectual level
Dave denied that HIS Q-intellect was that of "having ideas" and I
can't well oppose him, but I wonder if not ...ideas outside SOL yet
intellectual ...is this lofty occupation we call "thinking".
> and this disproves your SOLAQI Theory as I remember it. BUT, I
> must add, I might not understand your SOLAQI theory as well as I
> think I do, so I will await your reply.
Thanks for giving me the benefit of doubt.
> (snip)..............
> > For the intellectual level I put my money on the idea of Principles
> > and the creation of systems of thought (patterns) that adhered the
> > ideas of logical consistency, matched experimental data, and a
> > couple other ideas (I cant remember - Occam's Razor was in there
> > too - it's in Lila someplace).
The "AQI"(As Quality Intellect) is not in agreement with Pirsig, but
the SOL part definitely is. On p.306 in LILA he says: "Societies
invented intellectual knowledge to improve and preserve society"
(...) Knowledge has grown away from its original purpose and
become an end in itself". This indicates an immense span of time
from the time that "knowledge" was knowing when to sow and reap
(f.ex) to when it became the intellectual level of the MoQ. On p.167
Pirsig lists intellectual atttributes l
Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy
of the intellectual order over the -social order—democracy, trial
by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of the press.
These have all the value of distinguishing beteween what's objective
from what's subjective to them. Finding what objectively happened
not trusting subjective feelings is at the very core of our legal
system. The freedom of the press is used for the same purpose,
and the democratic system is to counter the tendency of "ego-
focussed" (subjective) persons to "usurp" the power at the
exclusion of weaker yet more "objective" ones.
And I think this highlights our differences: Patterns (of thought)
were non-SOL (social) for aeons, but eventually developed into true
intellectual patterns ...but they did not so in the capacity of being
"thinking" (calendaric calculation, inventing Zero or other great
mathematics) but for starting to look for what is " ...true, that which
is independent of what anyone thinks about it (ZAMM p.368)
> In my opinion, Bo, your quote that the "Q-Intellectual starts that
> did not find a foothold" is saying that the ideas never existed as
> Q-Intellectual thoughts.
As said above all levels started as patterns of the former, but went
off on a purpose of their own, so Q-intellect would start as social
"thinking" and there would be an immense span of time that no-one
(had a moqist been around) could tell them apart.
> Again, my question would be "where would
> these patterns fit into?"
If an individual of the Stonhenge time had said: "Are these lights in
sky REALLY gods or are they merely ...etc", it would have been
an SOL-intellectual start, but "thinking" did not take that direction
for millennias. Only with the Greek city-states did society grow
sophisticated (!!!) enough to habour idle thinkers who started to
look for eternal principles ...beyond the myths which is the embryo
of science.
> The pattern of value that the Mayans had for example (creating a
> calendar that charts lunar cycles, solar and lunar eclipses for
> centuries at a time) are, to me, clear examples of non-SOL
> Intellectual ideas. And the Mayans have left evidence in books and
> stone structures even today could predict solar events. Are these
> Intellectual? Social? Biological? Inorganic? I would have to put
> these patterns under the Intellectual level.
I know you would, but as said a lot of "thinking" activity was
invested in the maintenance of social value. The purpose of any
level is to subdue the lower, so Intellect's target is what it sees as
"thinking" in the service of what society wants. I don't find this
aspect in calendars or mathematics.
> Another example is this- Remember at the end of Lila. Pirsig is
> talking to his Indian buddy (I think his name was John) about a
> dog that he sees. Pirsig asks his friend, "What kind of dog is
> that?" And his friend thinks a moment and says, "It's a good dog."
> Pirsig was thinking in the SOL way of Aristotle, hoping to get
> an answer like "a mongrel of poodle and pit bull" and the
> Indians don't use that sort of logic. Is the Indian friend using
> Social level patterns of thought or is it part of the Intellectual
> Level particular to the Native Americans or something outside of
> that? I am actually not
> really sure here. In a way, the Native American was going directly
> to a Dynamic Quality answer. SOM doesn't exist for John (if that
> was his name), so where is his Intellectual Level? If you say you
> believe SOLAQI than I think you would have to say that John would
> have no Q-Intellect.
Why wouldn't a Native American of the nineteen-fifties perceive
intellectual value? But I think it's the dynamic/static aspect which
is Pirsig's point with this story
> You could make this argument (John was thinking
> that Pirsig was worried that the dog might bite- maybe just >
Social (who owned the dog)
I go for that :-).
> or Biological (survival)). But for me, it
> doesn't quite work. Whether or not a system of thought has
> achieved dominance has nothing to do with it's status as a pattern
> of value.
Er...this escapes me. My fault.
> And non-SOL patterns of value have survived centuries as the
> bases of many cultures intellectual levels. To me that disproves
> SOLAQI.
Now, we are back at square one again. Great cultures existed for
millennia, deep thinking and enormous amount of knowledge was
spent on observation and calculating without asking what was the
objective truth behind natural phenomena ....heck, there wasn't
"nature" at that time (nature/culture is a SOL offspring). All
"thinking" were in the purpose of social value (their mythology) no
SOL "sceptic" had emerged who questioned it all.
> I'm looking forward to your comments.
Thanks.
Another tome, but it's not every day someone asks me to expound
on this topic :-)
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 - 16:01:42 BST