David and All.
I choose to address you under a new heading as the threads tend
to become totally misleading. Also, I sometimes use QM.
MOQ/MoQ starts to grow tiresome. The 'Q' of the q-key of my
portable has started to peel!
> I hardly know what to say to a MOQer that disagrees with the author.
> But here are a few thoughts. I can only pray that they might begin to
> dislodge your demon. er, ghost.
When you returned and told about your social level epiphany it so
reminded me of my meeting with the Quality idea in ZAMM. In that
book it was the exposure of SOM that released my tears of
recognition, but in LILA retrospect I understand that it was the q-
intellect that had been my "target" which started me on my SOL
trail. Hope your next revelation will be that one.
> It seems to me that saying the intellectual level is identical to SOM
> is like saying that Newtonian physics is identical to science.
Modern science was founded by Newton - or around his time - its
objective approach may be called Intellect's conquest of
"practicality" while the Greek philosophy was its conquest of
theory. So in a sense you are right.
> It
> gives too much power to a system that has some worth, but that has
> been surpassed by larger systems. The MOQ goes beyond SOM and corrects
> its flaws by embedding in a larger framework. It seems evolutionary
> advances work that way.
"...too much power to a system.." It strips the SOM of its "M": It is
not THE WAY while simultaneously giving it the status it deserves.
You say it has some worth. Right, we cannot dismiss the
importance of the subject/object capability, and that is best done
by giving it the intellectual level.
".....the MOQ goes beyond SOM ..." etc.You bet, but can that be
done with SOM as one intellectual pattern, and the QM another
"well-adjusted" such. What would that be like compared to another
level? Dinosaurs the SOM and mammals the QM? If you accept
that comparacy, humankind was the q-biological "pattern" that
made the leap to q-social level so it proves my case. The Quality
Metaphysics will forever be an intellectual pattern while
simultaneously be the carrier of a new reality.
".....it seems evolutionary advances works that way". Right, and I
have made it clear that the MOQ is from q-intellect and will forever
be intellectual, but one that has started a new purpose. Like
humans remained biological after the social leap and social after
the intellectual, we will be intellectual after the Q-leap.
> The code of art doesn't refer to a 5th static level. No such thing yet
> exists and any talk of such a thing is sheer speculation. The code of
> art is about the relationship between DQ and all static patterns at
> all levels.
I agree, whatever grows out of Intellect will be STATIC.
> The SOM ghost appears everywhere because its not just an intellectual
> level philosophy. It is embedded in the very structure of language,
> which is at the social level.
Denis started about language each time he was cornered:
Everything was just words, but upon seeing the consequences for
his own words he fell silent. Your approach is not that sterile:
"...SOM not an intellectual level philosophy". I agree in the sense
that isn't a mere philosophy, it is a metaphysics!!
"...embedded in language". OK. Language has its origin at the q-
social level; the ultimate social tool that became the instrument for
existence's next climb. It meant abstraction, mere words could
convey emotions: bring tears to eyes upon hearing stories, instil
fear by being told what the ruler demanded ...or what God said
when evolution reached that stage, but this capacity which was so
instrumental for SOCIETY proved to be a double-edged sword. Ever
so slowly, millennium after millennium: "...the increasing power of
abstraction" (ZAMM page 366) gave rise to the development which
is described by that book.
[NB! In which it is presented as SOM, but is impossible to tell from
the intellectual level]
Certainly, language which entered existence at the social level will
forever be with it and intellect which used language as its vehicle is
"suspended" in it, and any movement beyond will continue the
language suspension. The power of the QM is that it lets us look
upon language this new way, not the SOM way as either everything
or nothing - both as sterile and untenable.
> Like all intellectual level constructs,
> SOM is culturally derived, even if SOM can't see that. (In fact, the
> subject/object split is so deeply imbedded in the social level that I
> suspect it might even stem from biology.
This split is between self and non-self I fully endorse and
understand your protest re. q-intellect as "individual vs community".
No, my S/O is something else, it's the ability to divide what is
objective from what is subjective.
> Perhaps it seems inescapable
> because it is related to the way biological sense organs work.)
Again, this lower-case "som" I agree on.
> I think your tendency to scold anyone who makes reference to > > mind or
> matter goes too far. The MOQ does not even try to eliminate mind and
> matter. It simply re-frames them in a larger context, one that has a
> duality of it own: Dynamic and static quality. And since subjects and
> object are totally embedded in the language it is impossible to speak
> without them.
I will try to mend my ways, but I hope you don't equate the DQ/SQ
divide with the mind/matter one ... OK, you don't, but see a
dynamic component to the static levels, but that doesn't really
address the problem of where SO belongs inside the QM.
About language as said - right. It spawned the S/O that grew into a
belief that it was reality itself, i.e: SO-Metaphysics.
> I have a hunch that you reject the idea that the MOQ is a description
> of a mystical reality and this is what has prompted you to create a
> solution, a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist. This
> non-existent problem is only created by your rejection of Pirsig's
> mysticism.
Perhaps. From the above I hope you - now - see my position. I see
yours clearly and hope for the longest to avoid reverting to
mysticism. The initial Q-leap (that Platt points to) is mystical , but
once that is made one need not appeal to it ........In my opinion.
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 - 16:01:52 BST