David B. and Group.
You spaketh thus:
> most of the
> confusion is due to the difference in languages and very little of it
> is philosophical. Anyway....
Agreed!!
> new dmb...
> So far, so good. I'd included these two quotes simply because they say
> essentially the same thing and support each other nicely. (I threw the
> quote about Descartes for the same reason; to show that Pirsig insists
> over and over that all intellectual descriptions are culturally
> derived.) But the second one seems more important because it suggests
> that the intellectual system (SOM) that fails to recognize its
> dependence on the social level was a needed step. It was a political
> battle for independence, first against the myths and gods, then "the
> church" and more recently against the various reactionary movements.
> But once this is resolved (I'm not so sure that it is yet resolved)
> then we have to go back and develop an intellectual system that DOES
> recognize its dependence on the social level, a system that DOES see
> that it MUST be socially derived. That's what the MOQ does.
> Bo hadn't yet seen my new comments when he follow Pirsig's quote
> with... ......he speaks about society, and if what builds on society
> is intellect then "science" is the latter day manifestation of
> Intellect. Not this or that theory, but the value of (searching for)
> an OBJECTIVE reality independent of what we SUBJECTIVELY think. This
> basic "attitude" has spawned all intellect's virtues and manifested as
> described in ZAMM with the Greeks, but may have had other
> manifestations - as in your 2 Mars message.
> new dmb...
> I honestly don't understand what you mean. I guess "2 Mars" means the
> 2nd of March, but I only speak English. More than that, there is an
> "accent" in your grammer that makes it very tough to know what you're
> really saying. I've read it over and over, but can't make any sense of
> it. Please excuse my ignorance.
Point taken. I write reasonably clear in the first draft, but for every
amendment it becomes more garbled by trying to cram ever more
meaning into it.
You repeat that Pirsig says that all intellectual descriptions are culturally
derived and I most vehemently agree - as long as you are in moq-mode,
namely that Intellect is dependent on Society, but you have this tendency
to alter between this and one where CULTURE slips round the MOQ. Pirsig
shows that the Quality=Reality attitude has old roots, but nothing can go
outside a metaphysics ...not without becoming a new metaphysics.
Intellect has superseeded Society, but you can't make the MOQ itself -
which has CREATED the level system - subject to one of its its own levels
values ...there is a slightly off-set view here.
> New dmb....
> In the older post I wasn't talking about SOM per se, I was only trying
> to point to specific aspects of the culture that bear a striking
> resemblance to it. I was trying to show where SOM came from. But
> again, I honestly can't understand what you're saying. Its that darn
> language problem again. I don't understand what was confronted with
> what?
No wonder you don't understand, it's just me believing that everybody
reads my short-hand. What I meant to say was that when I confront you
(DMB) with your own glaring demonstrations/proofs that Intellect's value is
that of "differing between what is objective and subjective" you just say
"no".
> I don't understand your challenge either. It seems like an
> impossible question. And the main thrust of what I've been saying is
> to get at what intellect is AFTER SOM, after the political battle is
> resolved.
Right. It IS impossible to tell what Intellect was before the SOM. Exactly
what I meant to demonstrate. Everything points to it being the S/O divide.
A "metaphysics" it became more gradually. Intellect AFTER SOM???? Yes
please tell.
> New dmb...
> Well, OK. I'm fixated. But at least Pirsig is with me in this. He sees
> no level beyond the intellect either. (DQ is beyond, but its not a
> level and we can't use it to describe anything because its beyond
> words too.) Until vast amounts of time pass and some as yet uncreated
> 5th level arrives in the world I think you should be fixated on it
> too.
Forget about a 5th level. Your admission about parts of the MOQ
transcending Intellect goes a long way with me.
> Again, I'm trying to get at the 3rd level values from which our
> intellectual descriptions are derived. I'm trying to get on that
> dependence that Pirsig keeps insisting upon. It seems to me that this
> is a perfectly legitimate project for this discussion group.
I agree that this is a moqish task, and you have done a great job here.
> It seems
> like a very MOQish task. Here's the thing - we agree that the MOQ is
> beyond SOM. Beyond all the frustrating misunderstandings, we really
> disagree where the MOQ belongs. You say its beyond the intellect and I
> say its not. Pirsig is with me on that too. His MOQ has no 5th level.
> That's your invention. SOLAQI narrows the 4th level to the extent that
> a 5th level seems needed, but that's the mistake; SOLAQI make its too
> narrow and creates problems that don't really exist. Toss out SOLAQI
> and 4 levels are enough.
Yes, we agree about the overall picture, but the Intellectual level has
always been a problem. To this day nobody has been able to find its
definition ...it has had a tendency to end up a vague mind-like realm, so
IMO a narrowing is exactly what is needed. I probably don't convince you,
but the SOL-interpretation seems like what Pirsig really means all the time,
however, the moment you come up with another convincing definition I will
drop it.
> New dmb...
> Myths are a good way to get at the innermost values of the 3rd level,
> as Pirsig says in specific reference to Campbell's MASKS OF GOD. To
> say they are equal to each other would be too narrow and would cause
> problems. Yes, its not too hard to see metaphysics in some of the
> myths, not in the sense of a full-blown philosophical system because
> that is an intellectual description, but they're rich enough that we
> might derive such a system from the myths.
Again I agree: Pirsig shows that the Quality Idea is out of Mythos, while the
MOQ is an intellectual pattern. Where else would the MoQ have its origin?
But all levels have had a "rebel" pattern that went off on a purpose of its
own, and there was an intermittent period when nobody could tell if it was
high X or a budding XX level.
> Please remember that it is
> SOM that sees cultural values as "old religious nonsense", as some
> kind of bad, archaic science.
This is properly observed.
> Pirsig's MOQ insists that this is the
> parent of intellect and ought NOT be dismissed. It has to be respected
> for what it is.
Agree!
> Its not bad science and its not something that should
> be thoughtlessly clung to as the Victorians did either.
Amen!
> New dmb....
> If Pirsig insists over and over again that our scientific description
> of nature is always culturally derived
Its moqish interpretation - Intellect out of Society - I agree with, but the
following ...
> why would he develop a
> scientific description (the MOQ) that isn't culturally derived.
... is a different matter. Had the MOQ been wholly a "scientific description"
(an orderly intellectual pattern) it would have made it to the science
journals, but its chief postulate (quality=reality) is something that science
regards as irrelevant - an article of faith. Much could be said about Pirsig's
hopes for a Quality version of the various scientific disciplines, I have
come to doubt this endeavour. See my entry in the "Seeing the Light"
thread (10th of March).
> Wouldn't he be contradicting himself? He says its impossible to do
> anything else, no? Yes, the roots go way back, back into the myths,
> into the mythos, back into the innermost values of the 3rd level.
> That's where the MOQ has to be derived according to his won rules, no?
Pirsig finds the Quality=Reality attitude demonstrated in the old Hindi
rituals ...that is my interpretation of the RT trail. But "...that's where the
MOQ has to be derived ..." ??? The MOQ proper with its D/S divide and
the static system is nowhere to be found it the mythological past.
An aside: Your emphasize of the mythological past made me point to the
"support from the second last level" tendency, to which you replied the 3rd:
> As Marco pointed out, the alliance between biology and intellect is not a
> rule,
Just a coincidence. Not long ago you referred to Oswald Spengler who
wrote his "Decline ..." in the twenties when intellect made its break-through
in Europe. In the foreword he says that this is an effort to bilogize history.
Exactly where an intellectual pioneer would look for support ! Likewise,
anything wanting to "thwart" intellect will look to the social level.
> but the violation of a Pirsigian rule and that violation resulted in
> disaster.
No doubt LILA-Phaedrus saw the Intell-Bio axis as one of evil, but for once
I agree with John B about deriving an OUGHT from an IS. It's another
proof of MOQ's explanatory power.
These finer points aside, "new dmb" and "old bodvar" are basically in
agreement.
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 - 16:01:58 BST