Hello Bo,
>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.
The problem with excluding mathematics, formal logic, computer languages,
and other intellectual patterns from the intellectual level of the MOQ is
that they won't fit anywhere else, and new "platypi" are created which would
require assimilation by some future, better metaphysics. Pirsig foresaw
this problem which is why he didn't narrowly define the intellectual level
as to include only SOL, but other non-SOL intellectual patterns as well.
The MOQ asserts that all things are either intellectual, social, biological,
or inorganic patterns of value. They are exhaustive. If an encyclopedia is
constructed of these four topics, nothing will be excluded, except of course
Dynamic Quality which is not a thing or static pattern and cannot be
included in any encylopedia. Mathematics is certainly not a social,
biological, or inorganic pattern of value. As it is a static pattern and
not Dynamic Quality, it must therefore be an intellectual pattern.
The statement, "long before the intellectual level came to pass" is a little
unclear. In his notes to LC, Pirsig states that after the beginning of
history, inorganic, biological, social and intellectual patterns are found
existing together in the same person. The geomety and other methods of
calculating used by ancient man were intellectual patterns. If what is
meant by that statement is "before the intellectual level became dominant",
it would be true. Pirsig argues convincingly that it is only with the death
of the Victorians in the 20th century did the intellectual level dominate
the social level rather than the other way around.
> 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.
The social level is important in the MOQ, and including all intellectual
patterns within q-intellect does not change its importance. SOM-intellect
has ignored social values and denigrated all social morals as subjective,
superstitious, irrational, nonsense. The MOQ in contrast says that social
values have an important reality of their own, and should be supported by
intellect when they morally repress lower level biological patterns. It
says that intellect in its long history of trying to free itself from
repression by social patterns has ignored the social level's role in
repressing biological patterns. This needs to change, both for the sake of
society and the sake of intellect, since intellectual patterns will not
exist without underlying social patterns.
> 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.
Just because it is a static intellectual pattern does not mean it is
incapable of change. The MOQ asserts that all static patterns change and
evolve in response to Dynamic Quality. SOM-intellect's theory of evolution
only involves the biological level since no higher levels exist in this
system. MOQ says both social patterns and intellectual patterns also
evolve, and they all evolve in response to Dynamic Quality. In fact, the
rate at which evolution occurs for a static pattern is related to how high
on the hierarchy it is. Inorganic values, "the laws of nature", take
millenia to change and is virtually imperceptible. Biological evolution,
the evolution of Darwin, new species being created, takes thousands of
years. Social patterns evolve more rapidly. And new ideas and theories
are created on an almost daily basis in every intellectual area of study.
They are being created almost continuously right here in this forum.
> 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.
The SOM is not discarded. The MOQ would not have the value that it does if
it were. It says what were formerly known as objects are inorganic and
biological patterns of value, and what were formerly known as subjects are
now social and intellectual patterns of value. They are related through an
evolutionary structure. The quality idea does not need to leave intellect
because it finds a home within intellectual patterns. It's only Dynamic
Quality which must leave intellect and not be embedded within it or any
other static pattern.
Regards,
-- Sriram
----- 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
>
>
> 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
>
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