----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 01, 2002 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: MD Social repressions.
> On 27 May 2002 at 23:00, sriram25@comcast.net wrote:
>
> (in a reply to this by me):
> > >To judge requires a higher perspective IMO. It's biology that decides
> > >what inorganic stuff is good food (f.ex) and it's society that
> > >selects what organisms are good "citizens", and intellect that
> > >chooses among social patterns. So ...accordingly, it must be
> > >something "out of intellect" that can tell what are the best ideas.
>
> > There are definitely better and worse intellectual patterns and ideas
> > and no "higher" static pattern is necessary to distinguish among
> > these. For a simple example, let me make the following syllogistic
> > argument: All men wear hats; Socrates is a man; Therefore, Socrates
> > does not wear a hat. You would consider me foolish and idiotic for
> > making such an argument, and rightfully so, because it violates the
> > rules of logic, a high quality intellectual pattern of value. The
> > conclusion drawn does not follow from the premisses. It is an idea,
> > but it is a very bad idea. A much better idea would be to change the
> > last part to read, therefore Socrates wears a hat. This conclusion
> > follows logically from the premisses and is therefore better. It is
> > not "true" in any real, objective sense, it is just better
> > intellectually. This is a very simple and obvious fallacy, but there
> > are much more subtle fallacies in logic that are all based on low
> > intellectual quality. Pirsig repeatedly mentions the "ad hominem"
> > fallacy which means "to the person" and which was used against him due
> > to his earlier insanity. In the notes to Lila's Child, he says
> > logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining and you
> > argue that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does
> > this tell us about the condition of the sun?
>
> Dear Sriram
> As I see it such logical games aren't necessarily intellectual patterns
> (the way I see q-intellect that is) We know that ancient man used
> language, constructed calendars (possibly amused themselves with
> word games), and made up complicated theories of their origin and
> destiny?
>
> If we take the course that this is q-intellect the social level shrinks
into
> an insignificant small slot between biology and intellect that we may as
> well return to SOM's "mind from brain" postulate. Look Sriram, it is the
> SOCIAL reality which is MOQ's show-case. Matter, Life and Intellect
> can easily be compared to the SOM variants, but Society - as a reality
> of its own - is truly unique, and it is here that you and so many go wrong
> by equating "thinking" with q-intellect.
>
> > All the truths of mathematics are based on intellectual value. The
> > idea that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is equal to 180
> > degrees is a good idea. It is much better than the conflicting idea
> > that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equals 200 degrees
> > or 0 degrees or anything else. Given certain axioms and definitions
> > made by Euclid, it can be shown through logical reasoning that this is
> > the case, and the only reason it's accepted as true is because of it's
> > intellectual quality. It is not a "higher" pattern that "decides"
> > that these are good intellectual patterns, it is intellectual quality
> > itself.
>
> As said to DMB, mathematics as a discipline may be said to be
> "intellectual", but geometry and other methods of calculating were
> applied by ancient man long before the intellectual level came to pass.
>
> > Similarly, both SOM and MOQ are intellectual patterns, and the MOQ is
> > better. This betterness is not as easy to show as the previous
> > examples here, but some of the reasons are that it explains more of
> > the world and it explains it better.
>
> The betterness of the MOQ is indisputable, but SOM can't be discarded
> as an inferior intellectual pattern, the value that has given us
civilization
> must be retained as intellect itself, it's the QUALITY IDEA which must
> leave intellect.
>
> > It includes aspects of reality
> > that were previously excluded because they didn't "fit" into the
> > metaphysical system. It eliminates certain "platypi" that have never
> > been explained well by SOM. There are hundreds of other reasons why
> > it's better which I'm sure you know from reading and appreciating ZMM
> > and Lila. The point is that a higher static level is unnecessary for
> > the MOQ to be a better system of ideas.
>
> All this I applaud, but the intellectual level as a vessel containing all
> ideas and theories about existence is untenable. If Intellect is a STATIC
> level (which it is) it must have some severe limitations and it is this
> limitation I have tried to impose throughout my career here. Every time
> such MOQ-versed persons as yourself report my hopes leap skywards
> :-) but as often you go amiss in the labyrinths of the impossible
intellect.
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Bo
Gary's responses:
As said to DMB, mathematics as a discipline may be said to be
> "intellectual", but geometry and other methods of calculating were
> applied by ancient man long before the intellectual level came to pass.
Gary: Wow hold on. The Intellectual level of Stable Quality came to pass
the moment the first Biological ancestor of us Homo Sapiens had a brain
process and experience it. The Intellectual Level as Pirsig defines it in
foot note 24 of Lila's Child: ""In Lila I never defined the intellectual
level of the MOQ, since everyone who is up to reading Lila already knows
what "intellectual" means. For purposes of MOQ precision let's say that the
intellectual level is the same as mind. It is the collection and
manipulation of symbols, created in the brain, that stand for patterns of
experience."
We are unfortunately stuck with the poor choice (in my un-humble opinion) of
Pirsig with the term 'Intellectual Level' in the MOQ. He should have just
used Individual's Internal experience, or even 'mind'. Intellectual level
is patterns of internal experience within an individual whether those
experience can be socially defined as intellectual (read 'rational' or
'scientific' or whatever.). No Human being invented the Intellectual Level
it is something non-verbal and part of the patterns of Reality that Dynamic
Quality helps to manifest within a sufficiently complex biological pattern.
Next, "The bitterness of the MOQ is indisputable, but SOM can't be
discarded
> as an inferior intellectual pattern, the value that has given us
civilization
> must be retained as intellect itself, it's the QUALITY IDEA which must
> leave intellect. "
Gary's response: SOM is a map! It is a human invention. An attempt by us
humans to understand Reality. It can be evaluated as 'good' or 'bad'. It
was very useful in the past. With the advent of MOQ by Pirsig, he has
endeavored to show that SOM is not the highest quality, most useful map of
Reality. We don't need to retain SOM if we have a better map. But we
should acknowledge that historically SOM was the map we did use, those
retain it in that sense. We don't need anything to get us from SOM to MOQ.
SOM is one map of Reality based quite rationally on the use of Aristotelian
Logic and the structure of the Western languages. SOM is only a map. A
hypothesis that is like the Ptolemaic map of the Universe. The idea that
the Earth was the center of the universe was a human map [an invention of an
individual thus a Intellectual Value Level event which became part of the
Social Level once the idea was accepted.] That Earth centered map worked
fine enough for a while. But eventually the Copernican map was shown to be
less cumbersome and more accurate a description utilizing the evidence
available. Now when Copernican's map became accepted the Earth didn't move!
Our idea of the Earth's position moved. So to with SOM to MOQ. Nothing
changed on the biological, Inorganic level [yes, there are always events
going on in our brain that change, but that is not what I mean here.] when
we stop believing in SOM and when we start believing in MOQ. Our nervous
systems doesn't suddenly work differently when we believe a new idea. New
patterns of energy in the nervous systems is stored when we change ideas.
But the process of how the systems operates doesn't change from using SOM to
using MOQ. That whole idea that we have to explain how we got from SOM to
MOQ is just a fixation on words and making them into things! It is a
product of the flaw of SOM thinking!
Bo: All this I applaud, but the intellectual level as a vessel containing
all
> ideas and theories about existence is untenable. If Intellect is a STATIC
> level (which it is) it must have some severe limitations and it is this
> limitation I have tried to impose throughout my career here. Every time
> such MOQ-versed persons as yourself report my hopes leap skywards
> :-) but as often you go amiss in the labyrinths of the impossible
intellect.
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Bo
Gary's response: Well Bo, go back and read. Pirsig keeps telling you in
footnote 24 of Lila's Child that your statement "intellectual level as a
vessel containing all ideas and theories about existence is untenable." is
untenable. Yes you are right that "intellect is a STATIC Level". [Better
word is stable. Pirsig uses it once on pg 101 of Lila: "substance is a
'stable pattern of inorganic values.' " In my opinion we would all be
better off if Pirsig stuck with Stable patterns of values instead of the
word STATIC . In my essay I explain that all things have Static -- Dynamic
Quality . ] The Intellectual Level of MOQ AS DEFINED BY Pirsig is a level
of experience and a level of thought process. It is thus filled with
Dynamic activity. The products of that experience and activity is also on
the Intellectual Level of MOQ -- as defined by Pirsig. You Bo are stuck wit
h his terms just as we all are. As, you once told me: "Go read Lila."
[Don't make me find that remark you wrote in response to one of my earlier
posts, I can, but I hope it is unnecessary.]
Gary Jaron, "People shape, and are shaped by, ideas."
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 - 16:02:18 BST