Hi Platt,
Would you seriously consider the following to see how it fits; if it fits at
all mind you!
You have had problems with Bo's SOLAQI?
And now you appear to feel more comfortable about it.
May i suggest something that may have been missed because of a value trap?
The thing is, we MOQers agree value is fundamental reality; this comes from
ZMM.
The MOQ as stated in Lila differentiates four value levels.
However, the subject/object divide may actually be a fifth level in, and of
itself?
The MOQ points to the source of reality.
The expression of this pointer (the static MOQ statement) is not a new level
in the pointing hierarchy itself, as it would appear is Bo's view with his
SOLAQI.
All levels evolve and respond, adhere and exist, because of the primacy of DQ.
Intellect is the top level, but this is not merely Reasoning; it is all
intellectual activity derived from the social level.
But at some point, we agree a fifth level will emerge?
This will use Intellectual values for its own evolution and 'go off on a path
of its own.'
Why should this path not be the mistake we all feel and react against when we
read the battle between the sophists and the philosophers in ZMM?
Perhaps philosophers were the Intellectual conduit through which fifth level
begins to emerge?
i.e. The subject/object imposition.
I feel, as i hope many others do, that intellect was doing just nicely for
thousands of years before the pre-Socratics. (I understand many may disagree
and see this period as a social level of evolution.)
Just because we have no records of it may not undermine this view?
In fact, quite the reverse; the emergence of recording may be a symptom of a
paradigm shift towards fifth level.
Fifth level may be information pure and simple.
Or, to put it another way, the relations within information: Logic(s).
This may lead, and rather more quickly than some appear to be think, to
AI/Human integration.
This does not reintroduce SOM, but views SOM as, 'Getting the upper hand.'
For has no one stopped to consider why SOM should be a mistake?
It may be a valid evolutionary island in the sea of Quality?
Or is SOM an evolutionary dead end that should not have happened?
I feel the evolution of technology - the result of SOM human endeavour may
answer that one?
Now believe me?
I have been banging on about Pirsig/Quality and the rest of it for years.
The above suggestion sticks in my throat because it suggests i have been
mislead in not having thought for myself too much before today and swallowed
uncritically everything i felt i admired in Pirsig's work.
But surely Pirsig himself would wish those of us who feel he has come about
as close to hitting, 'The nail upon the head' as any thinker has done within
millennia to not give up thinking and challenging for ourselves?
If Pirsig had written, 'Zen and the art of computer maintenance' i wonder
what we would be discussing today?
Please stop and consider?
All the best,
Squonk.
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