Bo:
> The rule of the Q-development is that the lower level presents the
> building block of the next, and Pirsig also stresses that any level
> starts "..in the service of its parent". That is, indistinguishable
> from it (at first). Organic life is of inorganic matter. Societies
> are of living members. So far so good, but then how does Intellect
> build on society? What are the building blocks here?
AVID:
The start of Cultural level "in the service of it social parent".
This is rather simple. All cultural semantic fields [fields of meaning]
started of as an expression of a certain society, to make a certain society
stronger, but in time, the goals of each semantic field [science, economy,
art] ceased to be of the parent society and became independent allowing
member of OTHER societies becoming an active member in their field. For
example science was a child of western thought but grew out of this society,
western society takes part in science but science doesn't belong to western
society anymore [social forces cannot control access to it. Music is another
example. Jazz was of American African origin, but today the American society
cannot control access to musicians to do Jazz. But it definitely started
that way. The Internet started as an US military tool, but is not longer
controlled by any society. All started as children of a society, all evolved
beyond social control.
Also we can see it in Social order being parented by Biological parents.
Most societies start with the goal of enhancing the survival of its members,
namely biological goals [biological high quality], but later have their own
agenda BEYOND ensuring survival for its members etc.
After liberation of it's parent layer it should be built from an agent of
the previous order, namely not only a human being but AN EDUCATED HUMAN
BEING namely a member of a given society. There are other building stones as
well a sharing the quality of the SPQ.
I have a candidate for such SPQ structure but it's complicated and it will
take a bit longer to reveal.
BO:
> Well, that's what LILA is mostly about I guess, and Pirsig has drawn
> much hostile fire from his demonstrations that Intellect's
> independence from (social) bigotry and subjectivity is not so
> complete as science (sience= intellect's epitome) likes to think.
AVID:
What comes to [my] mind, is the [famous?] disagreement between Kuhn and
Popper regarding Science. Are you familiar with it? What I like to add to it
that in my eyes Popper regards science from a cultural point of view, while
Kuhn regards science from a social point of view. Here we can see how MoQ is
extremely useful.
BO:
. It
> started as common myths and still carries those deep within in the
> same sense as life is dead matter once it's stopped being alive.
> As I see it "common myths" are the building blocks for Intellect.
>
AVID:
Common myths are not building stones of intellect because they lack dynamic.
They are too static.
BO:
> But when it comes to Intellect, what could a possible movement
> beyond could use as a stepping stone?
AVID:
If you ask of a stepping stone from Social level to Cultural level, it will
be the realization that any society as a society cannot achieve DQ. This is
the stepping stone to the next level. Then societies will participate in
building a intersocial level the cultural [intellectual] level. The same
stepping stone will be good for the next phase too, namely no ART no
SCIENCE, can achieve DQ [or perfect harmony or the laws of the universe etc.
[here too Popper is useful] so the next phase will be a dialog between
cultural complex being such as music science and technology, getting the
heaviest obstacle [hopefully] out of the way, namely language. We as mortals
may experience this conversation as ZEIT GEIST values floating around, as my
nervous system has chemical stimulus that enable me to type. MoQ means [with
the idea of complex creatures that evolutionwise we are no longer the center
[or peak] of the universe, even if it is our universe, our perceived one.
BO:
Ideas? Ideas-as-such would
> mean "thinking" or MIND (of SOM) and that can't be surpassed.
AVID:
Ideas can be separated from MIND, take divine inspiration as one example.
And MIND can be separated from SOM, it can function in MoQ too as Subjects
and Objects will [or do].
BO:
No, but
> it could be the most general idea there is: the idea of ideas, which
> IMO is the subject/object notion. According to the carbon atom
> example the building block must have an "ambiguity" that DQ can use,
> and Quantum experiments has shown that the S/O dualism has a
> weakness deep down.
AVID:
If you like an intellectual building stone that has ambiguity in it I would
suggest scientific [or any other] theory. It has two sides unsepratable it
has its units [with measurement equipment etc.] and context [the connection
between these measurements units]. For years philosophers of science try to
separate them but a way to understand a theory is to apply it, to see the
units in their context. So how is "theory" for an ambiguous stepping stone?
BO:
>
> PS:
> A new level will not succeed (completely) in discarding its
> parent (Intellect [S/O?]), no more than Life has freed itself from
> Matter or Society has of Life or Intellect of Society.
>
AVID:
This is true, here Pirsig made another mistake, claiming total independence
of the layers, in my eyes a thing to correct. How? Again I worked out a
system [I'm sorry I'm thing about MoQ since Lila was published, but only now
I realized I'm not alone, how stupid of me!]
CNTRYFORCE:
>
>
> > This is the great mystery, "what comes after intellect?" I am
> > currently rereading ZMM, but from my previous readings (LILA as
> > well) the only time I think Pirsig actually mentions this mystery is
> > on page 171 of ZMM, where the narrator speaks of future exploration
> > "into realms beyond reason." It's intriguing stuff, but I don't
> > think Pirsig mentions this mystery again in either book. And who can
> > blame him? He had the mystery of Quality to tackle, and that was
> > more than enough for any one man. So I assume he is leaving this
> > mystery "what comes after intellect?" for future generations to
> > tackle, and he has given us the MoQ as a gift to tackle it with.
BO:
> That's right. As you know he distinguishes between the levels and
> the moral code between them, and beyond Intellect he hints to a code
> of art. I completely agree with you about the pontential of Intellect
> not being fully explored (that you said in another post). This is all
> very speculative, but who can resist? :-)
AVID:
What a wonderful world we are constructing here.......[I agree totally to
all the above, not that it matters, but I like to agree for once]
Bo [I think]:
My way of putting it is that
> > the MoQ recognises S/O for the invaluable tool it is, then TRANSCENDS
> > it by recognising its inherent limitations.
AVID:
I don't think so. MoQ is a model REPLACING the old model of SOM [it takes
effort but it is thinkable]. If we can see SOM in the eyes of the new [MoQ]
we will be much more rewarded than if we try to use the old SOM [in a
"business as usual" approach].
BO:
A similar relationship
exists
> > between Newton's laws of mechanics and gravity and Einstein's
> > relativity. Einstein recognised that Newton's laws were correct, but
> > only within certain limits.
AVID:
Again I must protest. Einstein REFUTES Newton laws of physics, but in a
certain limit the CALCULATIVE DIFFERENCES are neglectable. This DOES NOT
MEAN that Newton is right, only that his error doesn't show in certain
limits of measurements. About the use of false theories see Hans Vahinger
"The philosophy of as if" a forgotten German brilliant philosopher. The
English translation is only partial and makes Vahinger looks dumb, but in
German it is brilliant [the German name : Die Philosophie des Als Ob].
BO:
Similarly, the MoQ may help us to
> > recognise the limits of S/O-type thinking. If S/O is regarded as an
> > all encompassing metaphysics, then an argument which follows the S/O
> > framework consistently and meticulously must be accepted as the
> > truth. The MoQ allows us to recognise and admit the logic and yet
> > reject the truth of the argument. That provides the motivation for
> > finding a better truth.
>
AVID:
Spoken like a true hero, but in my eyes to construct a new metaphysical
model is easier than try to hold the old point of view [here Newton's
example is a bad example, connotatively of course]. I mean that all major
platapi are tolerable if there is no alternative but here we have a
candidate of an alternative. In your Newton/Einstein example the use of
Newton in a post Einstein world does not cause any major platypus.
BO:
> Someone must speak FOR the MOQ and not only look for
> difficulties. But I do wholly agree with you about ..... the MoQ
> recognizes S/O for the invaluable tool it is, then TRANSCENDS it by
> recognizing its inherent limitations.....(for me even to the degree
> that I want it to be a the Intellectual level itself). But you must
> admit that once one theory becomes part of a greater framework, its
> basics aren't valid.
AVID:
I disagree. I think that unless we use a system we are quite unaware of what
it can do. So my choice is to use MoQ to the max, in order to learn about it
strong points as well as about its limitations, this means now try to avoid
SOM as much as possible.
BO:
> about ever since we started this discussion. Pirsig's own that
> Inorganic&Organic=objective and Social&Intellectual=subjective I am
> not completely satisfied with. My own SOLAQI is an attempt at the
> problem.
Avid:
I don't like this division as well. Yuppie, models start to emerge... What
is SOLAQI?
I have an improved model of MoQ myself and a way to get there [QuIT =
Quality improvement therapy].
and don't forget to be gentle
Avid
icq 6598359
> For PLATT.
> You wrote:
>
> > Now what is happening here? Pirsig is "rationalizing" his switch from
> > not defining Quality to defining Quality. As Bo himself asserts, an
> > intellectual pattern is subject/object logic. The logical paradox here
is
> > that Pirsig assumes the validity of s/o logic prior to using s/o logic
to
> > justify using s/o logic (metaphysics) to describe reality. I believe in
> > law that's called, "assuming a fact not yet in evidence." or more
> > commonly, "putting the cart before the horse."
>
> What you wrote before this shows that Phedrus of LILA had grave
> doubts about launching his MOQ, but I protested against your
> statement that he ..acknowledged the futility of presenting a new
> metaphysics".
>
> The above looks devastating and I doubt if my "apology" satisfy
> your overwhelming logic and legal demands, but a new theory has to
> build on its predecessor's assumptions, and If I dare to wield my
> idea that Intellect is S/O logic (metapysics) itself, a DQ attempt to
> transcend its latest static creation will have to "start in its
> service", but ...go on pursuing a purpose of its own.... (LILA
> somewhere).
>
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:10 BST