On 24 Aug 2002 at 10:13, Wim Nusselder wrote:
> 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]').
Dear Wim
I better take a rest, I no longer read other people's messages properly or
look into previous exchanges, but merely "drone" on, and this time I'll do my
droning about the Pirsig quote below - and on a few comments of yours.
> 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':
Pirsig:
* '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.'
My point is that the MOQ re-defines EVERYTHING and that all static levels
are different from their dictionary counterparts. OK, matter and life perhaps
not so conspicuously as "society" which is something unique to the MOQ
and in this sense no Q-level can cross the SOM/MOQ border without a
transformation. Besides (if my memory serves me) the dictionary definition of
intellect is something about applying reason, which means "....collecting
and manipulating symbols..." IN A VERY SPECIAL WAY!!!!!.
I understand so well why Squonk find me such a pain in the ass, but if the
neural workings itself is Q-intellect then there is no social level level: Only
INTELLIGENCE out of brain. Or a tiny one until language appears, because
THAT is "manipulation of symbols", and from all I read of the MOQ the
intellectual level is something recent ....in this immense perspective.
> 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'.
This is seen from S/O-intellect, but you and I and all who know the MOQ will
certainly see ITS meaning.
> 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?
When I backed down? It was in some exchange with Wavedave, and he
accepted that I believe. Yes, the MOQ has its origin in Intellect, but is not at
home with it - the S/O-intellect that is, that's the clue. I have repeatedly
asked what is SOM's position in a future when the MOQ dominates the
Intellect? As a bad idea not to be entertained? MOQ's force is in my opinion
that it has de-masked SOM and made it into another STATIC level level in
its own system, of enormous value - the highest when the "M" is stripped
away.
> 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.
Sorry for sounding haughty, none of your definitions are "wrong" merely not
really defining anything. "Types of static latch" is not a description of the
nature of the latching itself. We all know what life is, but the various
biological "latching" strategies is not a definition of the biological level?
I have read and understood the rest of your message, but for this not to get
out of proportions....pehaps the same reason for your not reacting to my
appeal to evaluate the "Sophist" part I mentioned.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST