Bo
> I have backed down on a established 5th level, merely that the
> QUALITY IDEA is a rebel intellectual pattern (see later for an
> explanation)
Great, some progress, you must seen the dharmakaya light ;-)
I realize my doggedness on this is getting tiresome. You see I do agree
with you that SOL was a major shift in intellectural values, one that
still dominates Western thought, and that the MoQ seeks to strip the M
status from SOM.
> How could ANY level rise above its predecessor if the condition
> were to be accepted/understood from the one(s) before it?
> Again, by what means did social reality know Intellect when it was
> emergent?
These questions were my point exactly when you were proposing a separate
higher MoQ level. But since you've backed off that, they are mute. (Or
are you just conceding the point to shut me up? Sometimes, in arguments
with myself, I do this too. ;-)
> Likewise, Intellect will never recognize any movement out of intellect.
>This is an important tenet of the MoQ.
I again agree.
Next step. Wim posted this in the MD Oldest idea thread:
> 'In cultures without books ritual seems to be a public library for teaching
> the young and preserving common values and information. These rituals
> may be the connecting link between the social and intellectual levels of evolution.
> One can imagine primitive song-rituals and dance-rituals associated with
> certain cosmology stories, myths, which generated the first primitive
> religions. From these the first intellectual truths could have been derived.
> If ritual always comes first and intellectual principles always come later,
> then ritual cannot always be a decadent corruption of intellect. Their
> sequence in history suggests that principles emerge from ritual, not the
> other way around.' ('Lila' ch.30, in your copy p. 387)
Why is it that Pirsig provides all the clues, like this one, but we all
seem to be able
to overlook them until they are pointed out? OK we both agree that the
MoQ and SOM are intellectural patterns.(with MoQ noted as "rebel") This
quote suggests that SOM was not necessarily the only pattern of values,
or dominant, or even present at the transition from social to
intellectural. So SOM was not the midwife at the birth of the
intellectual level. If it is not responsible for the birth and not the
entire level, it must be just a pattern of intellectual values, a part
of the greater sphere of the intellect. That does not weaken the case
that S/O is the current ersatz M of Western though. Sorry, but I'm
afraid this is another nail in the coffin of SOLAQI.
> QM profess to replace the S/OM the two can't remain on equal footing.
And they are not. For understandabilty and simplicity at the
metaphysical level Pirsig was right to choose only the four broadest
levels of values. One of the reasons many of us have looked beyond
Pirsig is to try to see how others have broken down the major levels,
steps, jumps in evolution. One of the strengths of SOM's reductionist
approach is that it has been very good and very active in dividing
things up and trying to answer the questions like "What comes first?",
"How are these different?" "How are these the same?"
The is no reason that all this work is somehow now defunct. In fact IMO
it is absolutely necessary to integrate the smaller, subtler
progressions of values, or sublevels into each major level. This would
be the work of a Q philosophy based on a Q metaphysics.
> 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.
Not really.
We agree that in his SODV paper he clearly related that SOM catagorizes the
top two levels of the MoQ as "subjective" and the bottom two as
"objective". But of course he would like to abandon the terms all together.
Pirsig -SODV Page 15
"I can find no place where the words subjective and objective are used
where they cannot be replaced by one of these four categories. When we
get rid of the words "subjective" and "objective" completely often there
is a great increase in the clarity of what is said. One person who I'm
sure would agree with me on this would be Niels Bohr."
NOW WE'RE GOING TO GET REALLY RADICAL SO THAT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY
TO CHEW ME UP RATHER THAN THE REVERSE. READ THESE THREE SODV QUOTES
THOUGHLY. (and if necessary go reread the whole piece on the website.)
********
Pirsig-SODV page 12
"In the Metaphysics of Quality the world is composed of three things:
mind, matter and Quality. Because something is not located in the object
does not mean that it has to be located in your mind. Quality cannot be
independently derived from either mind or matter. But it can be derived
from the relationship of mind and matter with each other.Quality occurs
at the point at which subject and object meet. Quality is not a thing.
It is an event. It is the event at which the subject becomes aware of the
object. And because without objects there can be no subject, quality is
the event at which awareness of both subjects and objects is made
possible. Quality is not just the result of a collision between subject
and object. The very existence of subject and object themselves is
deduced from the Quality event. The Quality event is the cause of the
subjects and objects, which are then mistakenly presumed to be the cause
of the Quality!"
SODV page 16
"So Bohr never mentions the unmeasured phenomenal object shown as the
larger dashed oval in the diagram of Complementarity. But as was said
before, something has to be there. If it were not there the measuring
instruments would just be measuring their own internal characteristics.
It is clear from what Bohr does say that the unmeasured phenomenal
object is unpatterned. The patterns only emerge after an experiment.
This unmeasured phenomenal object is not the subject of classical
physics. So what is left to conclude? It seems to me that it is not a
very large jump of the
imagination to see that this unmeasured phenomenal object is in fact a
third category, which is not subject and not object because it is
independent of the two. When this assertion is made Complementarity is
out from."
SODV page 17
"It seems to me that a keystone in a bridge between the Metaphysics of
Quality and Complementarity may be established if what has been called
the "unmeasured phenomenal object" is now called the "The Conceptually
Unknown" and what is called "Dynamic Quality" is also called "The
Conceptually Unknown." Then the two come together. I would guess that
the Conceptually Unknown is an unacceptable category in physics because
it is intellectually meaningless and physics is only concerned with what
is intellectually meaningful"
*******
Don't you just hate it that Pirsig said, "In the Metaphysics of Quality
the world is composed of three things: mind, matter and Quality"?
But he did. How do we deal with this claim?
Well Pirsig starts with, ("unmeasured phenomenal object" is now called
the "The Conceptually Unknown" and what is called "Dynamic Quality") And
then goes on to
says, ("Quality cannot be independently derived from either mind or
matter. But it can be derived from the relationship of mind and matter
with each other.") (Quality is not a thing. It is an event. It is the
event at which the subject becomes aware of the object.) Who or What are
this subject and object?
One could conclude,because Pirsig said MoQ in composed of three things,
that these "unmeasured phenomenal objects" "the conceptually unknown",
"Dynamic Quality" the "something" that must go into the end of the
experiment to be "observed" are
"mind" and "matter"? How can there be a "relationship of mind and
matter" without their first being two "unmeasured phenomenal objects"
MIND and MATTER. Has not religion argued for the former, and science the
latter,... ...forever. Let me say it again MIND AND MATTER are OBJECTS
but not in the static sense but the dynamics sense of "we know not what"
except that they exist, I believe the philisophical term is apriori.
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 - 16:01:56 BST