Bodvar, Erin and all MOQers:
Previously, Bo said:
> 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.
DMB says:
The inevitable "just" comes rushing to the fore again? I think not. The MOQ
says ideas are NOT just subjective. It says that ideas are just as real as
rocks and trees and that they are connected to these other levels in a
matter of fact evolutionary relationship. Properly understood, the MOQ does
not allow us to view mental constructs as anything less than the highest
level of reality. Therefore, your SOLAQI attempts to fix what is not broken.
Bo said:
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.
DMB says:
I have to guess what you mean here. I think you're objecting to solipsism,
the interpretation that says even organic and inorganic patterns are just in
our minds. Is that it? This is just SOM's idealism taken to extemes and is
an incorrect interpretation of the MOQ. Pirsig says thoughts are just as
real as rocks and trees, but he does not say they're the same thing as
thoughts.
Bo said:
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.
DMB says:
Yea, we can have thoughts about what is "out there". This creates no
problems. Its only natural because the higher levels include the lower ones.
We need no radical measure to get out of it. We don't want to get out of it.
We want to be totally embedded in it. The MOQ itself even includes SOM, but
also transcends it. It does not eject SOM completely out into space, it
embedds it into a larger system. It explains how mind and matter are
connected in, again, a matter of fact evolutionary relationship.
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.
Bo said:
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.
DMB says:
Ha! Its easy to argue with him. The tough part is winning that debate! ;-)
But seriously, these non-SOM intellectual construction are language-derived,
but transcend language itself, which is a social level artifact. The
difference between a simple sentence and an equation in symbolic logic is
striking, for example. You can NOT do symbolic logic without sentences,
however. Again, it transcends, but includes the lower patterns.
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.
About which Bo said:
Here is the very crux: He says that the Quality idea (the MOQ) can't be
a true intellectual pattern!
DMB says:
No. He's saying that IF your SOLAQI were true, then the MOQ would have to be
excluded from the intellectual level. This is exactly the problem with
SOLAQI. It doesn't solve any problems. It only creates problems, big
problems, such as the need for a fifth level.
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.
DMB says:
And this excessive exclusion is another problem created by SOLAQI. And
please notice that operative phrase that defines the intellectual level in a
way that includes both SOM and the MOQ; "intellect is the manipulation of
LANGUAGE-DERIVED symbols". Symbols derived FROM language is different than
language itself, as I said above.
Previously, Bo said:
> 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.
DMB says:
Are there higher and lower patterns within each level? I think I'm with Erin
on this issue. You can bet your ass there are. (Think of the horror involved
in losing a bet like that!) How else can we describe the difference a
single-celled organism and one that's built of trillions of cells? How else
can we describe the difference between a prehistoric clan of hunter
gatherers and the first agriclutural empires? How else can we expalin the
difference between Galileo's telescope and the Hubble space telescope? The
difference between Newton and Einstein?
Bo said to Erin:
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.
DMB says:
Not to put too fine a point on it, I'd say that a modern state may very well
be intellectually directed, but it would always have to include the social
level. Otherwise, there would be nothing to direct.
> 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.
Bo said:
RIGHT! And the new Pirsig annotation shows that he sees this
fuzziness.
DMB says:
I have no problem with the idea of such a boundary between levels, but the
problem with putting the MOQ at the boundary between the 4th and 5th levels
is simply that there is NO FIFTH LEVEL in the MOQ.
Finally, there is another problem created by SOLAQI's excessive exclusion.
It excludes you, dear Bo, from having meaningful discussions about the MOQ
with the rest of us. It un-necessarily creates a rift, as if all debate must
come to a screaching halt until this SOLAQI idea is accepted. It just
doesn't work.
Thanks for your time,
DMB
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