Hello Platt, Bo, Erin, All:
> Bo's point IMO is that the laws of SOM are SO DOMINANT in forming
> understanding, especially the scientific pattern, that has permeated
> every nook and cranny of "intellectualism" in the 20th century, that to
all
> intents and purposes, SOM has become THE intellectual level,
> effectively squeezing out all competition. For example, where you can
> find anyone today who doesn't believe in the intellectual pattern of cause
> and effect? Mention to someone, especially one of DMB's professors,
> that "an apple values dropping to the ground" you will be looked at as
> bordering on insanity and in the case of the professor, hooted out of
> class. Further, as BO pointed out, who doesn't believe "that there is an
> OBJECTIVE, true, immutable reality impervious of what people may
> think of it. Voila. SOM!"
These statements show the merit of the SOLAQI idea of which it has a
considerable amount. There is no "SOM" to the modern physicist. There is
only the "real world" and more and more accurate descriptions of it. Pirsig
makes a good analogy with Columbus' discovery of America and the creation of
the New World and the Old World in medieval Europe. Before this discovery,
there was no "Old World" and "New World", there was just The World. It was
only with the discovery of the New World that the Old World got created as a
constrasting pattern. Similarly, before the "discovery" of the MOQ, there
was no "SOM", there was just reality. The MOQ creates the SOM as a
constrasting pattern and improves and expands upon it. The SOM is generally
not thought of as an "intellectual pattern of value" in competition with
other intellectual patterns, but as the only way to rationally describe
reality. This is the merit of the SOLAQI idea and probably the driving
force behind it.
It seems inconceivable that any modern physicist would describe physics as
the creation of static intellectual patterns of value to describe and
understand stable inorganic patterns of value. He would most likely
describe it as something to the effect of the attempt to understand the laws
of nature and the structure of matter thereby giving us a more accurate
understanding of the real world around us.
But this may change. And it will only change due to the fact that the MOQ,
as an intellectual pattern, is better than SOM. And this betterness is an
intellectual betterness, not a social, biological, or inorganic betterness.
It is its intellectual quality that will make the MOQ replace the SOM.
Just as the social level has moral laws that cannot be violated if one wants
to remain a member of society, the laws of the State, the Ten Commandments,
and such, the intellectual level also has moral laws of its own that cannot
be violated. At the social level, there are moral laws such as Thou shall
not kill, Thou shall not steal, Thou shall not commit adultery, etc.
Similarly, at the intellectual level, Thou shall not violate the rules of
logic, Thou shall keep within the rules of analytical reason, Thou shall not
make "ad hominem" attacks against an argument, etc. This was what was meant
to be illustrated by the "logical word games" of an earlier post. The real
strength of the argument for SOLAQI is that since the Enlightenment, one of
the most sacred moral laws of the intellect is Thou shall not violate the
SOM. The MOQ violates the SOM. It therefore must be removed from the
intellectual level just as one who commits murder or violates other social
moral laws must be removed from society and put into prison. It is not a
legal intellectual pattern and so is not at "home" at the intellectual level
and a new level must be created for it. The way around this quandary is by
recognizing the fact that the MOQ does not actually destroy the SOM but
expands upon it. It violates the SOM in the sense that it denies SOM's
claim that objects are real and values are unreal, but this violation does
not destroy the SOM, but rather includes and improves upon it in a larger
system.
If SOLAQI were modified to be something like SOL as the dominant
intellectual pattern for describing and understanding reality, there would
be no problems with it and would probably strengthen the MOQ. It is only
when SOL is equated with the intellectual level of the MOQ do problems occur
and platypi arise. Just as the SOM is weakened by excluding morals, values,
and Quality even though they exist and are definitely real, SOLAQI
ultimately weakens the MOQ by excluding non-SOL based intellectual patterns
such as mathematics and the MOQ itself, even though they exist and are
definitely real patterns of value.
Regards,
-- Sriram
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 2:07 PM
Subject: Re: MD Social repressions.
> Hi Sriram, Bo, Glenn, DMB, All:
>
> I think I understand where Bo is coming from with his SOLAQI idea, but
> Sriram makes an excellent point about Pirsig's intellectual level:
>
> > 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.
>
> In the notes to Dan Glover's "Lila's Child," Pirsig settles the question
of
> whether the MOQ is included in the intellectual level by saying ". . . the
> MOQ is itself a static intellectual pattern of Quality." This is
confirmed
> in LILA where he says, "The MOQ could be a replacement for the
> paralyzing intellectual system that is allowing all this destruction to go
> unchecked."
>
> So indeed, the question for Bo's SOLAQI is where to put the MOQ
> pattern or "system" if not in the intellectual level?
>
> Be that as it may, Pirsig tends to support the SOLAQI when he writes
> in LILA, "This intellectual level was screwing everything up."--a clear
> statement that SOM is the intellectual level itself. But then Pirsig
> seems to suggest that the intellectual level contains multi levels when
> he writes, "Many forms of intellect do not have a subject-object
> construction including logic itself, mathematics, and computer
> programming language." Then when he says, "Intellectual is the same
> as mind. It is the collection and manipulations of symbols that stand for
> patterns of experience." he adds more to the confusion about the true
> nature of intellectual level.
>
> But one thing we know. There is no doubt that the intellectual level
> consists of static patterns of value because ALL levels consist of static
> "laws" or moral codes. At the inorganic level we find a moral code
> embodied in the laws of physics, at the biological the laws of the jungle,
> at the social level "the law" and that the intellectual level the laws of
> logic, mathematics, computer programming languages and other
> STATIC CONCEPTUAL PATTERNS OF MEANING AND
> UNDERSTANDING. It is these latter laws or "ideologies" that provide
> the framework or "spectacles" through which we filter the data of
> experience in order to know how to act to survive. This is the level of
> intellect.
>
> Bo's point IMO is that the laws of SOM are SO DOMINANT in forming
> understanding, especially the scientific pattern, that has permeated
> every nook and cranny of "intellectualism" in the 20th century, that to
all
> intents and purposes, SOM has become THE intellectual level,
> effectively squeezing out all competition. For example, where you can
> find anyone today who doesn't believe in the intellectual pattern of cause
> and effect? Mention to someone, especially one of DMB's professors,
> that "an apple values dropping to the ground" you will be looked at as
> bordering on insanity and in the case of the professor, hooted out of
> class. Further, as BO pointed out, who doesn't believe "that there is an
> OBJECTIVE, true, immutable reality impervious of what people may
> think of it. Voila. SOM!"
>
> So today, SOM (or SOL) is the ONLY acceptable intellectual pattern for
> finding and establishing meaning and understanding. Within that
> ideology, all moral matters are social in nature and thus merely
> subjective and relative to individuals or cultures with no certain rights
or
> wrongs anywhere to be found. Who is to say that human sacrifices are
> bad if in a particular culture human sacrifices are considered "good."
> Who is George Bush to say terrorism is evil? After all, shouldn't we be
> "sensitive" to other's views? (The fact that "it's wrong to judge" is
self-
> contradictory doesn't bother today's so-called intellectuals.)
>
> As Pirsig says, "What a disaster!"
>
> The MOQ, in contrast to the "SOM juggernaut" (Bo's wonderfully original
> and accurate description) gives us a new intellectual framework (or
> pattern or ideology or spectacles, however you want to phrase it) that
> not only provides a better, more explanatory, more harmonious
> worldview but--and this is what's most important--allows for, indeed
> insists upon with its identification of Dynamic Quality--NON-
> CONCEPTUAL, NON-INTELLECTUAL FORMS OF UNDERSTANDING
> AND MEANING related to our direct experiences of BEAUTY, TRUTH
> AND GOODNESS, i.e., QUALITY.
>
> Sriram summed it up beautifully:
>
> > 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.
>
> Actually, once you agree that there's more to life than science can
> explain, more than "meets the eye," you are already on the brink of
> exchanging your intellectual spectacles for a new pair in which values
> are seen as not just a peripheral part, but the whole thing, including the
> material values science, using SOM, has discovered and that
> technology has provided to our benefit.
>
> Platt
>
>
>
> 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 - 16:02:19 BST