Dear Bo,
I'm glad that I 20/8 23:17 +0200 rephrased your SOLAQI definition of
Q-intellect in a way that gets your 23/8 10:43 +0200 consent.
I found the Pirsig quote you referred to in Erin's 13/7 21:46 -0400 post:
'The word "mind" is freighted with all sorts of historic philosophical
disputation. Buddhists use it much
differently than Western idealists who use it much differently than Western
materialists. Like the term "God", it`s best avoided. To prevent confusion,
the MOQ treats "mind" as the exact equivalent of "static intellectual
patterns" and avoids use of the term when possible."
(letter to Anthony McWatt, January 2nd 1998) [Ant McWatt, April 2, 1998,
email to TLS]'
Pirsig sounds quite sensible to me in this quote. I don't think Pirsig's
position ('mind is the exact equivalent of static intellectual patterns of
values') is logically consistent with your position ('these somish (mind,
consciousness, awareness .... etc.) terms ... are the Intellectual level ...
[a]long with their opposite[s]').
Now about my possible alternatives for your SOLAQI definition:
You object to my 25/6/01 14:31 +0200 statement that
'THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL CONSISTS OF SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATIONS of (inorganic,
biological, social and less abstract intellectual) reality.'
with:
'this is SOM in a MOQ guise. The objective world represented in our minds as
symbols'.
You misunderstand me here. With '(inorganic, biological, social and less
abstract intellectual) reality' I do NOT refer to an 'objective world', BUT
to static patterns of values, i.e. static quality experience. Compare Pirsig
in his now famous footnote 25 (in my latest version) in '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.'
You react approvingly to my 4/7/01 10:46 +0200 statement that
'ESTABLISHING TRUTH [is] THE HIGHEST STATIC QUALITY AT THE INTELLECTUAL
LEVEL'.
Your
'Yes, yes, I go for that: Intellect is the value of distinguishing between
objective (truth) and subjective (non-truth)'
rephrases my statement in a way which I do NOT agree with.
The 'value of truth' may be the same as 'the value of distinguishing between
true and false', but 'objective' is not the same as 'true' and 'subjective'
is even less associated (for me at least) with 'false'.
You write now:
'I have backed down on the Quality Idea as a separate 5th level, but is
an intellectual pattern not fully at home with intellect. If that helps?'
When did you back down on that? I remember reading quite recent posts from
you which suggest differently (but I am not going to research that)...
Would you agree on the MoQ being an intellectual pattern of values not fully
at home with the dominant intellectual pattern of values (at the same level
of abstraction i.e. at the level of metaphysics), i.e. with SOM?
You object to my 4/2/02 0:31 +0200 statement that
'[the] TYPE OF STATIC LATCH ... OF THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL [consists of]
MOTIVES ([or rather the] PRESERVING/REPRODUCING [of the] IDEOLOGIES [that
determine -as context- the meaning of these motives] VIA COPYING PROCESSES
...)'
by referring to 'the immense time span between cavemen and modern
civilization'.
So what? The time span between the split off of hominids from anthropoid
apes (which I consider to be the approximate start of Q-society in human
prehistory) and cavemen is even bigger. You still don't give a convincing
reason why the intellectual level could not have started 50.000 or 100.000
years ago.
(The term 'paradigm' is not essential in this definition.)
Your reaction
'Poor Wim, with this lead balloon for a vehicle ....etc'
to my
'type of latching/preserving/reproducing' definitions of Q-intellect
is not quite what I asked you
('point out some of the things my definitions don't explain ... and HOW they
"get bogged down in SOM-sand"'; emphasis added).
THAT you think that with my definitions 'there [is] no way [I] could
succeed', you have surely sufficiently made clear to me. Please explain WHY
you think so and HOW my definitions fail.
Further on you again restate your position without showing that you
understood mine and without showing what you think are the problems that
mine runs into:
'There were hundred of thousand of years when intellect was "in the service
of society", when it was the most advanced social pattern there were, but
WHEN it "took off on a purpose of its own" it emerged as counter to the
social cause and started its eternal task of controlling it ....social value
in intellect's world-view became
dangerous, emotional, biased subjectivity in stark contrast to its own
impartial, clear objectivity.'
According to you between cavemen and Aristotle intellectual patterns of
values did exist, but as advanced social patterns of values that were not
rebelling yet against their parents. In my opinion your position blurs the
distinction between social and intellectual patterns of values in a way that
is inconsistent with Pirsig's hardware/software/novel metaphor for the
(discrete) Q-levels. You can only convince me of your position by showing
that a comparable transition occurred between biological and social and
between inorganic and biological AND that doing away with Pirsig's idea of
discrete levels has advantages for a metaphysics.
According to me intellectual patterns of values started going off on
purposes of their own immediately after their birth, for instance by
creating mythology in much more detail than was necessary for their role of
serving social patterns of values. Trying to 'control' the next lower level
is not a distinctive feature of being a separate Q-level for me, because it
can too easily be mixed up with the competition for domination between
patterns of values of the same level. I think Pirsig's idea of 'intellect'
trying to dominate 'society', 'society' trying to dominate 'biology' etc.
was not a very helpful one and I am trying to do away with it in my MoQ. I
have not been consistent in this however, as shown by my 12/2/02 9:11 +0200
quote: 'ETHICS AS THE MORALITY BY WHICH INTELLECTUAL PATTERNS OF VALUES TRY
TO CONTROL SOCIAL PATTERNS OF VALUES'.
You object to my 3/3/02 1:00 +0200 statement
'IN ORDER TO TRIUMPH OVER THE 3RD LEVEL AND TO REACH ITS HIGHEST LEVEL OF
DQ, THE 4TH LEVEL HAS TO BECOME REAL CRITICAL OF 3RD LEVEL PRACTICES: IT
DOES SO BY FORMULATING PRINCIPLES, (WRITTEN) LAWS, RESPONSIBILITIES, DUTIES
AND ... RIGHTS.'
with
'If any virtue is social it's "duty". It's THE social value.
"Responsibility" too IMO.'
Not according to my definitions of Q-society and Q-intellect. According to
my definitions 'duty' and 'responsibility' in the context of my statement
are intellectual representations of social patterns of values.
I don't think it is any use to discuss such details (what value belongs to
what level) before we agree on the foregoing, on the definitions of the
respective levels.
By the way, to make my definitions more consistent, I might have to rephrase
this statement as:
'In order for the 4th level to reach its highest level of DQ, intellectual
patterns of values have to become real critical of lower quality
intellectual patterns of values. In other words: they have to compete.
Higher quality intellectual patterns of values therefore formulate
principles, (written) laws, responsibilities, duties and ... rights.'
Dear Bo. I don't think it is very helpful if you just reply to anything
with:
'The above is nonsense with all respect!'
Please explain WHY you think I am writing nonsense in my 5/3/02 10:46 +0200
statement:
'DIGNITY is -unlike status, unlike fame and fortune- an intellectual value.
It IMPLIES HAVING THE POSSIBILITY TO UPHOLD ONE'S PERSONAL TRUTH, INTEGRITY
AND IDENTITY.'
If you combine it with the idea (in Pirsig's words) that 'the intellectual
level is ... the collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the
brain, that stand for patterns of experience', 'dignity' may STAND FOR
social experience yet BE an intellectual value.
I don't need to delve into ZMM to know that for me the Sophists are in
retrospect representatives of lower quality intellectual patterns of values
(that stand for social experience, yet, but that is irrelevant to me).
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:21 BST