Hi Rob, Glove, and All,
I've been away working on my presentation of the MOQ to the Humanist
Forum lately. If you're interested, it's the topic of the month on the
LS.
Glove quoting Rob:
> >These were my preliminary *intuitions* why we should forget about the
> levels.
> >
> >1. Along the lines of Kevin's posts, I questioned the usefulness of the
> >levels. The levels explained perfectly issues that which I already knew
> but
> >they never helped me with something I didn't know. My conclusion is
> different
> >from Kevin, however. Instead of using the levels for theoretical purposes
> >only, don't use them at all. A theory with no predictive power must
> somehow
> >be flawed.
>
> Glove:
>
> I disagree with you here. Since we are here examining Robert Pirsig's
> Metaphysics of Quality, we are bound by our controlled folly, so to speak,
> to examine all of it and not disband it. We have been invited by Mr. Pirsig
> to expand upon
> it, if we can, but not destroy it.
Mary (me):
I agree with you Glove that we should not attempt to dismantle the MOQ.
All the pieces are there for a reason. But I disagree with Rob that the
levels should be discarded because they are useless. Perhaps it's only
my ego at work here, but the levels consistently give me a logical way
to confirm what I already thought about an issue. True, I already
thought it, but before Pirsig I had no way to justify or verify my
thoughts - they were just my thoughts, my opinions, no more or less
valuable than anyone else's.
>
> Rob:
> Krishnamurti has help me 10 times more
> than
> >Pirsig in discovering truth. The aspect of the MOQ saying reality is made
> of
> >experienced patterns explains why we should be in touch with reality.
> >Krishnamurti and other Eastern philosophers concentrate on the how --
> through
> >great attention, listening, and nonjudgmental observation -- not thinking
> >about levels.
Mary:
Then I would wholeheartedly encourage you to continue with
Krishnamurti. Whatever works and brings peace of mind is the most
important thing. BTW, as a child I had a female cat named Krishna, and
a rooster named Siddartha. This all came about because of my reading
Herman Hesse's series Siddartha, Demain, and finally Magister Ludi.
Well, he WAS pretty smart for a chicken! Later, I learned that Krishna
is a male deity and thus a real misnomer for my cat.
(Rob?:)
> >Definition B: Intellectual quality is not everything that comes from
> thought.
> >Thought makes sense of the lower levels to understand what is good. True
> >intellectual quality, consequently, is only that which frees the mind to
> have
> >ideas. Freedom of speech is intellectual quality. Studying nutrition is
> >intellectual quality. Eating a sandwich is biological quality.
> >
> >If this definition is true, then Pirisig contradicts himself equating
> things
> >such as justice with the intellectual level. Is the innate value of
> justice
> >that it frees us to understand things better?
> >
> >Futhermore, is an idea -- however new and truthful -- always better than
> >everything else? Is an idea always more important than a life, for
> example?
> >
> >c) Intellectual quality is concepts that change reality.
> >
> >Same problem as Definition A. Anyone who feels right about an issue,
> probably
> >has some sort of concept backing up their belief. Anyone, consequently,
> could
> >have some good or bad idea and slap a label of "intellectual" quality on
> it.
> >Truth comes then comes from debate/logic and so forth.
> >
> >Perhaps this was the intent of Pirsig's MOQ: to direct everything to the
> >highest level known as the intellect. Don't follow honour, tradition,
> >physical pleasure but always try first to
> >question/conceptualize/experience/understand what is right.
> >
> >I could agree with this treatment, but I don't think Pirsig meant for this
> >interpretation. Sexual activity, for example, was always labeled
> biological
> >quality despite any understanding of what one was doing. Furthermore, this
> >treatment takes a lot of bite out of the MOQ. It simply justifies the use
> of
> >reason, which is what the classical philosophers taught centuries ago.
>
Me:
My key for understanding the intellectual level is to remind myself that
it IS a level and as such is defined by the same parameters defining any
other level. The intellectual level is not defined as having ideas. We
had ideas all the time before the level was born. What sets it apart
from the others is that we finally statically latched into the concept
that it is wrong to deride intellectual VALUES just because they don't
support the social level. The birth of this idea was the birth of the
intellectual level.
Prior to the existence of the intellectual level, we were thinking
people with exactly the same brains we have now. The difference is that
we allowed (not only allowed, but insisted) that our thoughts support
and be of use to the social level. The whole reason the intellect
exists is to enhance the stability of the social level. But the
intellect is not the intellectual level. The definition I like is
Bodvar's SOLAQI (Subject Object Logic as Q Intellect). The pattern of
thinking used by the SOM is the intellectual level, and it is actually a
level rather than a social value because it has freed itself from
accepting conclusions that are ONLY good for the social level. The
intellectual level allows us to seek the "truth" without regard to the
social consequences, just as the social level seeks its own most
workable form without regard to its parent the biological level. So, I
agree with you, Glove (see below) up to a point. We differ in that I
believe there is an intellectual level with a set of values unique to
itself, and that those values are a logical search for truth without the
hindrance of social values.
> Glove:
>
> I see that you failed to mention the definition of intellect I advanced some
> time ago, which I think helps to solve the problems you list above. In my
> definition, reason is assigned to the social level, as is logic. The reason
> :) for this is that both reason and logic are agreements made within the
> culture derived from in order to further unambiguous communication. Not only
> is language culturally derived, but so is our sense of color apparently,
> which was once thought to be a "universal truth". No more. See this article
> in New
> Scientist magazine:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/cgi-in/pageserver.cgi?/ns/19990320/newsstory3.ht
> ml
Best Wishes,
Mary
MOQ Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:54 BST