Hi Wavedave and Group:
> and >>> = Wavedave
>> = me
> > 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?
Well put. Much chastised.
> > > 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.
I have backed down on a established 5th level, merely that the
QUALITY IDEA is a rebel intellectual pattern (see later for an
explanation)
> 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.
How could ANY level rise above its predecessor if the condition
were to be accepted/understood from the one(s) before it? It is as if
you think "discussion" is Intellect (sigh, I know only too well that
you do). The stone-agers surely discussed many things.
And another thing. According to the MOQ we are (of) all levels and
if existence is to surpass intellect we will be the carriers of that
value too.(again see the "rebel pattern")
> 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?
Again, by what means did social reality know Intellect when it was
emergent? NOT by social value - in which view it was all bad -
rather by the dynamics of the pioneers. Likewise, Intellect will
never recognize any movement out of intellect. This is an important
tenet of the MoQ.
> 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?
I pointed to the original way of subsuming which makes Intellect
"subjective" while the SOL makes it the S/O divide itself, this
should be plain.
> > 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.
This may work for you... but the a metaphysics is supposed to
cover everything and as the QM profess to replace the S/OM the
two can't remain on equal footing. There is an inherent animosity
between the two and this reminded so much of the inter-level
struggle that it launched me on the SOL track way back. The Q-
idea will never feel at home with the S/O around and the S/O won't
go away ...the rebel pattern again ...(see below).
> Come on Bo, "rebel" not withstanding, you can't have it both ways
> either QM is an intellectual pattern or it's not!
Not so quick Dave. All levels were once the uppermost and
fostered a pattern that "went off on a purpose of its own". If we cast
ourselves back to the era of social value, there was a period of
ambiguity when nobody knew - except the said pioneers - that a
new value plateau was establishing itself, it just looked like a bad
social development.
> > 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.
Here again is the "mind-intellect" where indoor plumbing equals a
metaphysics.
> 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.
So, now "mind" no longer covers the intellectual and social levels
(which Pirsig limited "subjectivity" to) but there is a mind aspect to
ALL levels. If you can tell this apart from the subject/object
metaphysics it's quite a feat.
Thanks Dave all the same for your time.
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 - 16:01:56 BST