RICK IS WONDERING IF THESE LEAD INS HAVE NOW BECOME STATICALLY LATCHED IN
THE LILA SQUAD.
Jonathan, Bodvar, XCTO, Roger, Fintan and all,
In response to Bodvar's call for the cavalry I would like to offer the
following, most of which is simply rehashed.
I agree with Jonathan's analogy of the computer class and if the MoQ is of
the highest possible quality that it can be it should be able to refute all
naysayers who seek to rearrange the levels, or change the rules, or sneak
whatever into the back door. If it cannot do these things....
However, I don't think as many of these challenges have been made as it
now seems(of course I can't know what on before I got here). In Fintan's
case I feel nothing has been rearranged... only renamed. Fintan has taken
Roger's "BIOLOGICAL MIND" and given it its own level (I know that XCTO
claims this feature is a part of society, but I disagree on the grounds
that one hardly needs a society to think at this level as previously
described, however that's a seperate discussion). Fintan also acknowledged
that the INTELLECT functions are not simple extensions of these lower
"Biological Mind" functions, claiming INTELLECT skipped over society and
usurped it. But one level cannot simply "jump" another. I think this
acknowledgement clearly shows that despite what his(?) posts indicate,
Fintan can see and does admit that INTELLECT does in fact sit on top of
Society. How Fintan feels about this is another story. I think Fintan has
simply confused low Quality IntPoV with all IntPoV. And so struggles to
make them subserviant to something else, in this case society.
Ultimately, we all still appear to be in agreement.
There is only one problem here: Semantics. All this has been is renaming
and it serves no purpose other then to make the model seem more
complicated. Bo and others are right when they point out the beauty and
necessity of the 4 levels. They serve a purpose, that of organization. We
could give a level to every little system that seems to deserve one but
then where would we be? We would have no Metaphysics at all... just names.
And of course Pirsig isn't unquestionable- he'd probably laugh at the idea.
Rick
At 03:19 PM 11/16/98 +0200, you wrote:
>JONATHAN ADDS SALT
>(try it Bo, it helps once the stinging passes)
>
>>BODVAR FEELS WOUNDED AND CALLS FOR REINFORCEMENT
>>BEFORE THE MOQ IS REVISED COMPLETELY.
>
>
>Hi Bo, reinforcements and Lila Squad,
>
>Bodvar has set himself up as guardian of the MoQ, adjudicating which of
>Pirsig's ideas are to be held sacred and which are dispensible.
>Bodvar has decreed that the 4 levels of MoQ are not to be tampered with.
>On the other hand, he has expressed his disappointment with a passage in
>Chapter 24 of Lila where Pirsig equates InPoV and BioPoV with Object,
>and SocPoV and IntPoV with Subject. He has also repeatedly dismissed
>ideas in ZAMM as preliminary or abortive.
>
>>Dear All.
>>First it was Jonathan contesting Pirsig's interlevel conflict,
>>and Fintan reviving Jonathan's old complaint about Intellect from
>>society, and then his suggestion of a new ranking.
>
>Bo, if we are going to argue this out properly, let's not misrepresent
>each other.
>
>1. Regarding Pirsig's interlevel conflict, I pointed out that Pirsig
>contradicts himself on this
>(see my post of 5th November). I understand that you either don't
>understand the contradiction,
>or don't see any need to resolve it.
>
>2. I accept Pirsig's structural dependence of Intellect on Society (see
>my post of 23rd August). What I argue with is his MORAL ranking of
>Intellect above Society above Biology ... (see my posts of early to mid
>August).
>
>>The "rescue operation" from various parties haven't improved the
>situation
>>much, suddenly there are levels all over the place. Roger correctly
>>called it a basket of worms.
>
>
>This is a sure sign of a bad starting place. I wasn't around in the LS
>when Doug Renselle produced his scheme mutiplying the MoQ levels, but
>from what I saw of it, I wasn't particularly impressed. Division of
>reality into levels seems to be necessary for "philosophical work" to
>proceed, and I think that Pirsig's Fab-Four turn out to be quite good
>working tools, though not a Holy Quaternity.
>
>>Don't you - all - see that if the level sequence is tampered with
>>and/or SOM's "thinking itself" is brought in through well-meaning
>>back doors, there's nothing special about the MOQ any longer.
>
>Bo, I am now convinced that SOTAQI is actually a MoQ description of SOM.
>SOM is so bad at describing itself that the fact MoQ does it better is
>hardly a surprise. Describing the thought pattern now prevalent in
>Western cultures is not what makes MoQ special. I thought that Pirsig's
>mission is not just to describe how we think and act, but to CHANGE it.
>If the current structure of MoQ is up to the task then so be it - in
>that case it should be resilient to all our attempts to tamper. I am
>reminded of an undergraduate computer course I once took when the
>lecturer answered almost every question with "try and see". When asked
>whether this might damage the system he answered that the operating
>system was supposed to prevent inadvertant crashes, and thus any failure
>would be one that "the system deserved". If the MoQ can't resist
>well-intentioned tampering, then it can't be worth very much.
>
>[snip]
>
>
>I look forward to the arrival of the cavalry ...
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>
>homepage - http://www.moq.org
>queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
>unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
>body of email
>
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:39 BST