Bodvar and y'all:
Once agin, I've been snipping like crazy. This time I've preserved a few
words on two issues. The first one is a point about SOLAQI that I never
quite noticed before; the "continental divide" between the social and
intellectual levels.
Bo said:
Of course it's not just the "just" that returns, the whole SOM is
smuggled in by the back doors by the idea-intellect, because the
"continental divide" is then removed to (between) the social and the
intellectual levels - not as Pirsig himself wants it to be (in his
demonstration how the MOQ "contains" the SOM) at the bio/socio gap.
I know that ideas (abstractions) are as real ...etc. "properly understood",
it's just that kind of understanding which is made impossible.
DMB says:
As I understand it, your SOLAQI is an attempt to define the intellectual
level as indentical to subject/object logic. I don't see what says about the
social level. How does it preserve this continental divide between the 3rd
and 4th levels? This issue fascinates me; the line between them. Its very
hard to make hard declarations or to come up with a rule that works every
time. It feel like I know the difference in specific cases when I see them,
but can't seem to spell that out either. Its a fun issue because its so
difficult.
And along the same lines Bo said:
Again intellect as "thoughts". Rock is inorganic value while trees are
biological, what about a social example? Are there no abstraction or
"thoughts" at that level? Intellect isn't thoughts - as such - rather a very
special way of thinking.
DMB says:
To provide examples of social level notions is easy. I have a million of
'em. Thou shalt not kill. I love my country. Nice guys finish last. Drugs
are bad. Adultry is a sin. These are social level ideas. And yes, we agree
entirely. Intellectual values involve a very special way of thinking. I'd
say it always involves something like thinking ABOUT thoughts. Now on to the
second issue...
> DMB said:
> 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.
Bo responded:
I have called it a development from simplicity to complexity. Can you
really say that a single-cell organism is of low biological VALUE? It's the
pattern that carries the rest of life's great edifice.
> > 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.
DMB answers:
Yea, ok. Maybe simple and complex is a better way to describe the
differences between things like a virus and a cow. And while its clear that
the MOQ holds that every structure in the universe is good and right, it
also says some things are better than others. Its a constant battle between
old goodness and newer betterness. So I don't think its exactly incorrect to
say a virus is lower than a whale. That kind of designation just indicates
an evolutionary direction.
But I do wonder if Cheech is higher than Chong. <:^o)
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 - 16:02:18 BST