On 23 May 2002 at 1:04, enoonan wrote:
> BO: Firstly, to say that both are intellectual patterns makes Q-
> intellect identical to SOM's "mind"; everything is mental constructs,
> theories, maps (with the inevitable "just" in front), you know the
> argumentation, and what the MOQ was supposed to be a relief from comes
> rushing to the fore again.
> ERIN: Please expand on this not sure if I know what you mean.
Hi Erin
My above was a reply to your:
> > Are SOM and MOQ both
> > intellectual patterns. If so what exactly is the bridge between the
> > two--the intellectual level?
The "ordinary" understanding of the MOQ is that its intellectual level is
the realm of ideas, and consequently that SOM & MOQ are intellectual
patterns. This (ordinary understanding) however makes everything
intellectual patterns for what is NOT ideas - just in our minds, and we
are back in SOM's mind/matter quagmire.
Some discussers postulate that all q-levels are "out there" but have an
intellectual counterpart, but this is just working themselves deeper into
the mire. Som radical measurement must be taken to get out of it, and I
believe to have cut the Gordic Knot by my SOL-interpretation: Q-
Intellect is the S/OM itself!! Thus seen the MOQ is a "rebel" intellectual
pattern.
In annotation #43 Pirsig said (about the above idea):
> > This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude non-subject-object
> > constructions such as symbolic logic, higher mathematics, and computer
> > languages from the intellectual level and give them no home.
It's tough to argue with Pirsig, but these "...non-subject/object
constructions" are merely other forms of languages and "language" is
the social pattern that served as a vehicle for intellect ... at least let's
suspend this for a while and go on to Pirsig's next sentence.
> > Also the
> > term “quality” as used in the MOQ would be excluded from the
> > intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives intellectual meaning
> > to the term quality, would also have to be excluded from the
> > intellectual level.
Here is the very crux: He says that the Quality idea (the MOQ) can't be
a true intellectual pattern!
Pirsig ctd:
> > If we just say the intellect is the manipulation of
> > language-derived symbols for experience these problems of excessive
> > exclusion do not seem to occur.
This is an important new definition of q-intellect. I commented it in
my previous post to you.
........resuming our discussion ................................
> BO: A solution is to call SOM a low intellectual level and the MOQ a
> high one, but are there any such examples at the other levels. Is a
> tribe a low social pattern and a modern state a high one? IMO no, the
> former is a purer social pattern while the latter is heavily overlaid
> with intellectual value.
> ERIN: If something is overlaid with a higher level value then isn't it
> a higher pattern? A tribe and modern state are both part of the social
> level even though one may be a higher level pattern no? Is what you
> are saying that a higher level pattern is a bridge between levels?
Good point, but no serious problem as I see it. Human beings are (of)
all value levels (a "jungle" it says in LILA) so a modern state may well
be a social pattern overlaid by intellectual value.
> Bo: In that sense SOM is the basic intellectual value, while the MOQ
> is an intellectual pattern heavily overlaid with the values of a
> higher level ... exactly what my SOLAQI idea says.
> ERIN: When you call MOQ a rebel pattern it I can't tell whether you
> are placing it on the intellectual level or not.
A relevant objection/question. You know the "discretion" postulate?
That each level is a qualitative jump, yet Pirsig also postulates that
each level is out of its parent level - once "in its service" - so there must
necessarily have been a period when no-one could tell ... for a instance
a low social pattern from a high biological, but once separated the
discreteness is obvious.
> Annotation #41-- The virus is the boundary because it is the simplest
> organism that contains DNA. I have read there is some dispute about
> the virus being living or dead, and I take this dispute as evidence
> that it is the boundary.
> The dispute whether the MOQ is part of the intellectual level may be
> evidence that it is the boundary right? This seems to say that the
> fuzziness of the boundary is okay right?
RIGHT! And the new Pirsig annotation shows that he sees this
fuzziness.
> I was trying to decide whether it was possible to name the all
> disputable boundaries. Virus numero uno then...human?
My suggestions: VIRUS (Inorganic/Biological). FAMILY (Bio/Socia)l,
LANGUAGE (Socio/Intellectual) and the Q-IDEA (Intell/?????)
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 - 16:02:16 BST