Bo, all
> (3WD again)
> > Focusing just on the intellectual level;
>
> It's not easy to focus just on intellect ...when the whole q-range is
> in question, ...
Say what? Have you not for the last several years, when "focused" on the
MoQ's intellectual level, claimed that its "ground rules", "laws", or
"operating instructions" are subject object logic? Why now must "the
whole q-range" be considered? What's changed?
> > 1. What are these weakness?
>
> Saying that the intellectual level belongs to the subjective half
> makes the Quality idea itself "subjective", and for a system that
> proposes to oust the SOM? Struan Hellier's claim was just that
> and is kind of justified. Now, to do Pirsig justice, he naturally
> means that once SOM is subsumed by the MOQ it becomes a
> lower-case s/o and that neither object nor subject assume the
> former metaphysical greatness. But still ....
I agree that Pirsig validly claims the MoQ emerges from and subsumes
SOM. It seeks to rises above or trump if you will SOM's former
dominance. But if the problem with Pirsig's way of relating subjective
and objective to the MoQ's static levels leads to the charge of
"subjectivism" or "idealism": Is it not possible that he made a mistake
in this relationship between S/O and the static levels? Indeed I'm
beginning to see the relevance of the "strawman" charge. Not because SOL
is not pervasive in a wide range of world views, but because the "common
man" interpretation (IOL&OL=Object, SL+IL=Subject) he presents has been
under challenge by a wide range of thinkers since before SOL rose to
dominance. I realize you are not a fan of Wilber, but if you look past
Wilber, or look at him not as an originator of ideas but an integrator
of ideas you see that most of the sources he draws from argue in various
ways against this "common man" SOL as the only
way, or the best way, of dividing reality. And if you don't like the New
Age odor of Wilber, the mainstream Popper argues quite convincingly that
intellectual values can be either objective or subjective.
> > And how does your theory correct them?
>
> By making the intellectual level the subject/object divide itself.
The point is that based on past performances of great thinkers we can be
assured that there will be errors, inconsistencies, or limitations in
their theories which may latter require the theories be modified or
scrapped. It just that the modification you propose, making the
intellectual level the subject/object divide and they adding a new level
above the intellect to contain the MoQ, IMO raises as many problems as
it proposes to solve.
First and foremost if this new MoQ level is "beyond intellect" it is
impervious to any interpretation by the conventions of any of the lower
levels. If we "know not what" this MoQ is by any intellectual, social,
biological, or inorganic means, How is that we can discuss it at all?
What we are doing here is ultimately futile if the MoQ is beyond any
intellectual interpretation. According to the MoQ the intellect is the
best we got short of full blown DQ. And we can't live on DQ alone.
Second, What are the means by which we know, not Quality, but this
emergent metaphysical level of quality? Intuition? Revelation? Mystic
Enlightenment? Rapture? Harmonic vibrations? Osmosis? Divine
Intervention? It's direct experience prior to intellectual abstraction,
but it's not DQ either. What is this [blank] abstraction?
Third, What protects or guarantees that this new level is not
subjective? It emerged out of a subjective base. Why then might it not
be ultra subjective?
> > 2. What are benefits of this interpretation?
>
> Firstly that it removes the said quandary,
But does it? See above
> but more than anything else the S/O is kept as a value, for who can dream of
> rejecting that "capability" which would mean stone age, and how can that be
> preserved with SOM a "bad idea" somewhere lower down in the
> intellectual realm.
If the MoQ is an intellectual value but of a higher level the SOM, it
does not deny that SOM is a pattern of value or reject its "capability"
it just points out that its uses, while many and powerful, still have
limits. It has inherent errors which are not sufficient to explain the
full range of experiences present in reality. And when it try's to, it
leads to splits like "mind/matter" which while useful in some ways is
detrimental in others.
> and that is done by seeing Quality Metaphysics as a "rebel" intellectual pattern.
Come on Bo, "rebel" not withstanding, you can't have it both ways
either QM is an intellectual pattern or it's not!
> And another thing (please spend a few
> seconds pondering it) what if there comes a "better idea" along?
> Will THAT be another q-intellect pattern if the new idea rejects the
> Q-idea wholesalely!
If the whole system is an evolving one and a "better idea" came along I
can't for the life of me see why one wouldn't be obligated to move on up
to the better system. If we didn't followed this kind of logic; Why did
we ever move out of caves? Surely the "better idea" of electricity, and
operable windows, and indoor plumbing leads one to reject the idea of
living in caves in favor of a "better idea". But if these values are not
available, the idea of living in a cave still has great value.
> > 3. What are the pitfalls?
>
> Of my SOLAQI? By making the Q-idea a moral level above q-
> intellect it makes it immune to s/o based arguments,
Not just s/o based arguments but any intellectually or socially based
arguments or critique of any kind.
> but it raises solipsism accusations.
Yes it does. I await your comments to Angus on this issue.
> > 4. In the balance is this then the best solution?
> In my opinion yes,
As the TV game show hosts asks, "Is that your final answer?....
... Sure you don't want some help from the audience, or to call somebody
for another opinion?"
> I have a hunch that you a few days ago refuted my claim (that your
> q-intellect sounds like SOM's mind) on the grounds that there is no
> mind/matter divide. I would like to see you repeat Struan's exercise
> in describe things without it, because it's impossible.
I did not claim there is no mind/matter divide, just that I have never
experienced what we call "a mind" in the absence of what we call
"matter" or "a body". And I also agree that it is a useful split, just
that while it has some very real practical value, it also provides an
avenue for many misinterpretations of reality. This split is
particularly useful to religions who in a "common man" interpretation
equate "mind" to "spirit" to "soul" which according to their dogma lives
on after death of "body". Difficult to explain this concept if you don't
have this split. But again I have no direct experience of this concept,
and will not, even if I have faith in it, until I die. Which I'm not
itching to do just to find out.
The MoQ interpretation, on the other hand, says for all practical
purposes whenever we use the word "mind" we are talking about not just
intellectual patterns of value but all the underlying social,
biological, and inorganic values which are integral to the experience
"mind". For right here today and for all practical purposes, the term
"mind", includes, cannot be really be divorced from, certain
social/cultural values, certain biological "brain", "sense organs",
"body" values, and certain inorganic chemical and electrical values
that make up the "mind" experience. But once you acknowledge that, it is
perfectly reasonable to talk about or investigate how the multi layered,
composite pattern of values "mind" is manifest, or works, or is
experienced, on any one of these discrete levels.
3WD
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 - 16:01:54 BST