Hi Wavedave (PS for Platt)
On 24 Aug you said
> Bo,Wim,
> I think you both know what side of this issue I am on. When in the
> "Consciouness" thread Platt refered to Pirsig's "child intellectural
> or mental development" quote it jogged a question about the
> "Q-intellect." in relation to Bo's position.
> I think we all agree that static patterns change. Either stay
> dynamically stable, move toward DQ, unlatch and de-evolve, and
> sometimes become extinct.
First, Pirsig says nothing about "intellectual" or "mental" development in the
said passage! Next, are you talking about the value level as such or patterns
within? The former don't change, the amoeba lives by the same biological
value as all higher organisms, yet they are worlds apart. In between many
species have emerged and gone extinct, but the basic value is fixed, what
else is "static" supposed to mean? Yet, a set of static rules can open up for
a virtually unlimited variety, the genetic code has just six letters (isn't that so
you experts?) yet generates the whole cornucopia of life.
> In human development from child to adult to
> old age to death we get to experience a short segment of this
> evolution over and over. First the child, Pirsig suggests, must
> attend to dynamic quality in successfully develop through infancy,
Regarding the human (mammal) embryo. As it grows sense organs it starts
to receive more inputs from its environment, but according to Pirsig's
description it knows no names for its experience. Biology (sensing) needs no
language, all organisms live perfectly without it, we humans too - as biology,
who can describe the (taste) difference between apples and oranges?
> then it must attend to social quality to successfully develop through
> adolescence,
"Must attend to" sounds like some task imposed on the child but the social
(emotional IMO) component of reality comes as naturally as the biological
one. It's not long before the baby's smiles, the most primal social signal,
then comes language which is a social pattern at that stage ... the
sophisticated one that facilitates Intellect.
> then ,according to Bo, must attended to SOL to
> successfully enter into the intellectual sphere. Then and only then
> may one move on to the wisdom of the MoQ.
OK.
> Now of course you see the question coming, "How is it that if all
> patterns of value evolve or de-evolve, change, and particularly to a
> greater degree at the two higher levels.
As said I am not sure what you mean by "... patterns of value evolve and de-
evolve". Individual patterns of a level evolve until one (pattern) reach a
degree of sophistication to be the spring-board for a new level, but the basic
value remains. Family/tribe/clan etc. are as much social as the country or
state configuration - more so in fact because the (city-)state was
sophisticated enough to support idle thinkers who spent the day at the city
square discussing the validity of the old myths and thus laid the foundations
of subject/object metaphysics. (ZMM)
> that the SOL remains fixed" Does this not suggest that SOL can never
>become extinct?
The SOL will never become extinct, it will remain the intellectual level. It has
grown a plethora of sophisticated patterns ... the Quality Idea the most
unruly one because the parent can't evolve beyond its S/O frame, but don't
worry Dave it will stay home for a long time.
In my opinion.
Bo
PS
This from Platt however was encouraging:
> In my framework (and I believe the framework of the MOQ), these
> various patterns of meaning, encoded in diverse symbolic
> configurations, emerged from the social level to form the basis of the
> static intellectual value level. This level separated from its social
> parent when it adopted as its primary organizing principle the unspoken
> assumption that for purposes of preserving and enhancing life, experience
> is best divided into subjects and objects, inside and outside, a mental
> world and a physical world, a me-in-here and you-out-there, etc, etc.
> Just when this division took hold is matter of some conjecture, but some
> say it was Aristotle who initially put the division in the minds of
> world's best thinkers from whence it filtered down to the general populace
> over the centuries. Today it is firmly ensconced almost everywhere due to
> the spectacular success of science and technology that relies on it almost
> entirely. (Scientists got the shock of their lives when they discovered
> that the quantum world, far from being an independent reality, depends on
> observation to exist. But I digress.)
Wish Platt would "digress" some more, the remark about quantum physics
is just spot on. Even if the quantum experiments and the conclusions drawn
from them shook the scientific community and spawned a lengthly
philosophical debate the subject/object metaphysics rode out the storm. Our
old member Doug Renselle (Quantronics) made a great effort to apply QP to
the MOQ, but got lost in all kinds of sub-inorganic levels and tables. It is, as
Platt says, the effect for Intellec that counts.
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