Hi Wim.
Re. the Sophist issue see my answer to Marco
> '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.
Yes, but before a rebellion the rebels are part of the company.
> 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
Lets take the inorg-bio. first. To say how these budding bio. patterns
can be said to have been "in the service" of its parent is difficult
to say, but according to LILA the carbon atom is ambivalent enough to
allow building of complicated molecules, those got more and more
complex and at some time "rebelled". Something living left its
lifeless home. Perhaps not very convincing this, we have given little
attention to the inorg-bio relationship in the discussion, but the
hard-/software aspect is obvious .... at least the meaning I freight
it with.
Now, DQ broke out from this static prison by taking advantage of the
most advanced biological pattern, namely that of "translating" the
immediate sense experience into a shared experience we may call
"emotions" (which is feeling at a distance). A sneer from the alpha
wolf makes the beta wolves feel bad and cringe in front of the leader
without actual biting. This is still "in the service of" biology, the
said ability made co-operation possible and life in a colony is more
secure and security spawned more advanced brainy animals (primates-
humanoids) who created even more sophisicated emotional bonds. With
the humans and language this development reached a level that
transcended the biological purpose. The hardware/software aspect is
just as distinct, no blurring whatsoever. When a community demands
sacrifice of life for its own cause it is no longer biological value.
> AND that doing away with Pirsig's idea of
> discrete levels has advantages for a metaphysics.
As said there is no doing away with discrete levels IMO.
> 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.
The way you see these patterns (as intellect proper) sends intellect so far
back that it next to eliminates the (human) social level. Myth-making
is the human hallmark, myths are social value. We are baptized, get
married and are buried by mythical rites! Nobody believes
(intellectually) in them, yet can't drop them. Inexplicable from
S/O-intellect's p.o.v. but the MOQ explains it! THEY ARE THE VALUE
THAT INTELLECT BUILDS ON.
> 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.'
Well if that is your goal ....! To me this aspects of the MOQ is part
and parcel of it.
> I fully agree with the first 3 paragraphs (see underneath), your
> account from ZAMM of how the subject/object metaphysics came to be.
> I stop agreeing when you superimpose LILA and write:
> > ...'as Socrates and
> > Plato ..etc. promoted the new objective approach against this
> > subjective threat - and ucceeded - it indicates that the S/O
> > divide isn't merely another intellectual pattern, but the
> > intellectual level itself'
> For me this is a clear case of 'competition for domination
> between patterns of values of the same level'.
See the said post.
> Software doesn't try to
> kill a novel for trying to be a new level. It is simply unaware of
> it. Socrates WAS killed.
The point of the hardware/software analogy it is that the novel exist
at both levels, not that it tries to become a new (third)
level.
> I have spelled out my disagreement with David B.
> about myths etc. being social reality clear enough. This does not
> confirm your view in my eyes.
David's insight about the social level is one of the greater
contributions.
> So this is one of your antics again, Bo. Rephrasing your SOLAQI-idea
> again and again (this time without mentioning the acronym, you make
> progress!)
By antics I meant my self-mockery, trying to appear a great guy, the
ideas aren't.
> without paying proper attention to counter arguments and
> alternatives.
Your alternatives aren't wrong, they describes the social patterns
that enabled Intellect splendidly, but (as intellect proper) it makes
the social level shrink into insignificace. And that one is what
really sets the MOQ apart.
> I would be very interested if you would reconsider how
> your SOLAQI-idea relates to your experience (and tell us about it),
> for that is what discussing MoQ is about: It is about MoQ as
> 'symbols, created in the brain' and how they 'stand for patterns of
> experience'. Of course I would also still appreciate to know
> 'whether you can't find valuable elements in my "definitions" of
> Q-intellect, elements that relate to your experience, and comment to
> them, instead of defending your ideas against mine'.
My initial good feeling for the Quality idea (through ZAMM) was
because it gave the S/OM (rationality) a good thrashing, in the MOQ of
"Lila" the SOM soon became the Intellectual level (to me that is) and
this gave me an even greater "kick" (I have been high on it ever
since) because as a static value SOM was not TRASHED rather
domesticated. But then - in the discussion - there were people who
wanted to make Intellect some mindish realm and I felt the SOM
reclaiming its lost ground and hence my "crusade".
Bo
PS:
Some statement of yours flashed by about "emotions". Are you also seeing
those as the social "expression" I call?
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 - 16:06:29 BST