From: ml (mbtlehn@ix.netcom.com)
Date: Sun Oct 03 2004 - 07:50:06 BST
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 02, 2004 8:03 AM
Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
> Mel,
>
> >
> [Scott prev:] > > Now I'm not claiming that pre-SOM philosophy got
> everything right, but to
> > > restore Quality but not Intellect just makes no sense.
> >
> > mel:
> > Sure it does. Quality is attributional by definition.
> > Intellect is evolutionary a process.
>
> [Scott:] The issue is whether Intellect is there in inorganic and
> biological levels. I don't understand "Intellect is evolutionary a
process"
> with respect to this question. Also, I would think that to call Quality an
> attribute is non-MOQ. What is it an attribute of?
mel:
Think of quality as an attribute of being
As I understand MoQ, there is no intellect
in the physical or biological, but rather
the physical and biological are in the
intellect or maybe more correctly they
are foundations for intellect.
Sorry for the ill-delimited the statement
prior. Should've been:
Intellect is evolutionary, a process.
MoQ seems to be about our evolution
in our perceivable universe. Not sure
beyond that how to place Pirsig's work...
>
> >
> [Scott prev:] > Something has value
> > > if and only if its value is appreciated.
> >
> > mel:
> > You are equivocating on the definition of value
> > to something not compatible with MoQ, something
> > subjective.
>
> [Scott:] There is no value unless there is an awareness of better and
> worse. Such an awareness requires comparisons. It need not show itself in
> S/O form, but that's about the only way we know to think about it. There
is
> no such awareness in a purely mechanical universe, for example, so we
> reject that there is a purely mechanical universe. So if value is
> omnipresent, then there is omnipresent an appreciation of value. In our
> experience, that appreciation shows in the various ways that we say that
> things are meaningful. All those ways involve the relation of a thing or
> event to a pattern. This is what Peirce calls a sign-event, the 3-way
> interaction of thing/event, pattern, and relating. This, it seems to me,
is
> a more productive way to address Quality than the MOQ's.
mel:
There is a lot of assumption in this bit
of real estate. The long response I deleted
may be best replaced with a question.
What do you see as the relation between
Quality and Value?
(sorry if I missed it earlier...)
>
> >
> [Scott prev:]> Something is moral if and only if
> > > there is choice. An isolated thing has no value. Its value only exists
> in
> > > the thing's relations and functionality, which are universals. In
short,
> > > Quality and Intellect are two facets of the same thing.
> >
> > In our experience,
> > > both value and intellect only seem to occur in humans, though one can
> also
> > > see appreciation of value in higher mammals. For us to think that
value
> > > exists in rocks and earthworms is a bit of a leap of faith, but a
little
> > > reflection shows its plausibility.
> >
> > mel:
> > even pre-instinctual tropism show the existence of value.
>
> [Scott] If there is a sense of better and worse in the tropism, if there
is
> a choice of not turning toward the sun, and not just in our appreciation
of
> it. Otherwise it is mechanical.
mel:
Tropism is not mechanical, but it is narrowly
restricted to only on possible action, the pursuit
of A value. The perception of degrees of value
are show in the fineness of adjustment to that
value.
>
> >
> [Scott prev:]> That is to recognize instinct and laws
> > > of nature as supplying the context for appreciation and choice. But
> again,
> > > these are intellectual processes. Without the universals, and the
> judgment
> > > of how well the particulars fulfill their roles in universals, there
is
> no
> > > value.
> >
> > mel:
> > It seems like you are trying to create a "subjective objectivism"
> which
> > is belabored in the context of past flavored formalism.
>
> [Scott] I am trying to treat Intellect as neither subjective nor
objective,
> but as ontologically prior to both. What past flavored formalism are you
> referring to?
mel:
Your treatment of Intellect is outside of
MoQ as Pirsig related it, at least as I read
his work and I may be wrong...
The formalism reference is other philosphical
bodies of work in general.
What I should ask is, why you are considering
Intellect a pre-existing condition or attribute?
This is intriguing.
>
> >
> >
> [Scott prev]> So it takes no more of a leap of faith to consider Intellect
> as
> > > all-pervasive, as much as Quality, especially when a little thought
> shows
> > > they are identical.
> >
> > mel:
> > Not in Pirsig's sense
>
> [Scott:] Correct. I am disagreeing with Pirsig's sense of Intellect.
mel:
Is it specifically how he uses the term?
If so, is there another term for what he describes?
Otherwise, is it fatal to what you view as his
formulation of MoQ or
the notion of MoQ vis other schools of thought?
> >
> > mel:
> > Apprehension in Being is not the same as the
> > discussion of an experience in the past. To rely on the
> > portion of intellect trapped in the past, in language, is
> > to remain at a remove from Apprehension in Being...
>
> [Scott:] Not if language (or Language) is the Ground of Being. Nature is
> (speaking metaphorically) God's speech. Our speech is a response.
mel:
Language is not the ground of being.
Mature is certainly a grand process of effect and
speech is one of our responses, but being
precedes speech.
>
> > mel:
> > Mysticism is not a needed ingredient and adds nothing.
>
> [Scott:] It is data that a metaphysics must be adequate to.
mel:
I understand that systems are always
meta-systemic in their degrees of
freedom or analytical dimension, but
I am not sure if this is where you are pointing.
Could you expand?
>
> >
> [Scott prev:] > But there is also
> > > the claim that what is experienced is prior to all conceptualizing.
> Well,
> > > this is no doubt also true. But what it leaves out is that *there is
> > > conceptualizing*. That is, while the Ground of Being (or Be(com)ing,
or
> > > whatever) may be said to be prior to all division, it is nothing
without
> > > all that division. The two (the formless and form) are the same
> > > (non)-thing, a contradictory identity.
> >
> > mel:
> > Hence the distinction Dynamic and Static Quality, in part.
>
> [Scott:] Yes, in part. In addition to the dynamic/static polarity, there
is
> also the whole/(dynamic/static) polarity. One can't really think this
> through to a conclusion, as it violates Aristotelian logic.
mel:
Anything not fully surrounded by language,
not fully static, largely escapes the grasp of
Aristotelian logic. Predicate calculus fails at
the edge of specific definition or at a post-
binary condition.
> >
> >
> [Scott prev:]> But as soon as one has form one has
> > > value and intellect. To put it in mythical terms, all reality is
created
> > by
> > > God's conceptualizing. Hence the error of the "go-beyond-intellect"
> school
> > > is to treat intellect as just being about reflecting on what exists.
It
> is
> > > also the source of what exists.
> >
> > mel:
> > This is an interesting weaving of post hoc ergo propter hoc and
> > an equivocation of intellect into something preceding intellect
>
> [Scott] On the equivocation, only if one defines intellect the way SOM and
> the MOQ do. I don't see how the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy applies,
> since I am not talking about causation.
mel:
As I read your statement you place intellect
as the source of existence, being, and yet
the term "intellect" as a process in mind
is post social/biological/physical for the
MoQ, as for Buddhism and other meta" "
Maybe it is more emergent or eruptive than
causal, but to place intellect on both ends
has the flavor of p.h.e.p.h.
>
> >
> > >
> [Scott prev:]> > The unfortunate consequences of the conventional
> interpretation of
> > > mysticism is a tendency to spurn the intellect. No doubt, our current
> > > intellects are faulty. But to reject it for some ideal beyond
intellect
> is
> > > to go in the wrong direction.
> >
> > mel:
> > The earlier concern with Coherence, if I grasp it sufficiently,
> > is not to reject intellect, but to build upon the intellect as did
> > the intellect upon the social, upon the biological, upon the
> > physical, rather than to cantilever a philosophy over "empty
> > space."
>
> [Scott:] I lost you here. Is this an agreement with what I am saying or
> not? I can't tell.
mel:
I agree that spurning the intellect is a mistake, but
so is driving purely into intellect. Coherence seemed
to offer an "anchor" or a vector...
It seems worth exploring.
>
>
> >
> [Scott prev:] > It tends to result in falling into Wilber's
> > > pre/trans fallacy. But consider the last two of the Buddhist 8-fold
> path:
> > > concentration and meditation. What these do is discipline and train
the
> > > intellect.
> >
> > mel:
> > Not the intellect, but the mind.
>
> [Scott:] In the MOQ, the mind is social and intellectual SQ. So I think
you
> are agreeing with me. As opposed to the notion that meditation is about
> shutting down the mind. Of course there is also the question of will,
which
> the MOQ doesn't address
mel:
Sorry I was looking at Buddhism, not MoQ, as
to modifying your 8-fold path statement. However,
I am in general, broadly agreeing with this statement..
>
> >
> [Scott prev:] > The basic characteristic of our intellect is the S/O
> divide, the
> > > ability to detach an observer from an observed and reflect on it. Now
> > > granted that there is no absolute division (that would be SOM), this
> > > detachment is what makes intellect possible. And meditation is the
> > practice
> > > of strengthening that detachment. Therefore, Zen works, but by
> > transforming
> > > intellect, not by going beyond it.
> >
> > mel:
> > To know the limit of a thing you must exceed that limit.
> > The habitual use of mind is unsound, hence training and
> > Intellect is only one activity of mind.
>
> [Scott:] I propose that one learn to see limits as what intellect creates,
> that reality is created by setting limits.
mel:
Relying on intellect to see the limits of intellect
is not going to work from a system viewpoint
because there is no access to the additional
degree of freedom or analytical dimansion.
The context must be meta-intellectual, as it were.
Hence the bippity-boppity-boo of Zen.
>
> >
> >
> [Scott prev:] > Of course, one has gone beyond our
> > > everyday, SOM-drenched intellect. But if that is all that intellect
can
> > be,
> > > one has fallen into the error of thinking that evolution has stopped.
> >
> > mel:
> > Pirsig makes no such claim, but rather urges us towards the
Dynamic.
>
> [Scott:] Don't ignore the "if" in my statement.
mel:
Good point...
>
>
> [Scott prev:] > > There is a more general moral question, though, and that
> is how we
> > consider
> > > intellect in general, never mind those few who are mystically
inclined.
> > I'm
> > > kind of surprised that in Lila and in this forum there is very little
> > > attention paid to intellect itself. Well, in Lila there wouldn't be
> > room --
> > > it is already a full-length book without going into it, except to make
> the
> > > valid point that intellect trumps the social, and discussion around
it.
> > But
> > > there is no discussion along the lines of "what is intellect", in fact
> in
> > > LC, Pirsig says he purposely did not go into it, on the grounds that
> those
> > > who read Lila know what it is.
> >
> > mel:
> > Now you are getting to the hard nut burried in the meat
> > of the MoQ fruit's flesh...
> >
>
> [Scott prev: ]> In a sense he is correct, but in another
> > > sense, we don't really know. The unique difference between intellect
and
> > > the other levels is that intellect can reflect on itself. That means
it
> > can
> > > be self-evolving. It is DQ and SQ all right here available to us to
> think
> > > about, but nobody seems to care. I find that perplexing.
> >
> > mel:
> > Our ability to get distracted in mind, and these discussions, may
> > create an appearance of "not caring", but the whole reason the
> > moq.org exists, unless I am badly mistaken, is to try and get a
> > focus on the mometary flashes of understanding we all got in
> > the reading/re-reading of Pirsig.
> >
> > Intellect, as a level of evolution.
> > Intellect as an activity of mind
> > Intellect as a process in the past
> > small intellect versus BIG INTELLECT
> > Apprehension beyond the habitual
> > SQ becoming DQ, pointing to DQ
> > seem to be where the "value" (pun intended)
> > is to be found. Not in the over-painting
> > of Pirsig with possible related philosophical
> > ideas, or the assignment of his ideas to
> > dusty bins of classification in smoky
> > offices in schools with chairs named
> > for dead scholars.
> > We need a little conceptual circumcision
> > to free up Pirsig in our thoughts to focus
> > on the Static/Dynamic edge...
> >
> > Not meant to be harsh...
>
> [Scott:] But beside the point, methinks. I believe that criticism of the
> MOQ also belongs in this forum. And criticisms of the criticism.
mel:
It would seem critique rather than criticism is a
better approach. (In the traditional sense...)
The critique adds an expansive rigor in
the form of extension and complement.
Criticism acts to break and to be properly
used, if you want to engage as a philosophy
in the formal sense, it must follow the rigor of
expansion otherwise it is a waste of time.
Pirsig himself has conveyed that he has
only just started.
So, the stages of a formal philosophical
development:
1)Original Position
2)Sympathetic Hearing
3)Expansion / Synthesis
4)Critique
5)Comparison
6)Criticism
7)Debate
(I may be missing a step or two,
this is from memory and 20-odd
years past...)
...place us at about 2 at this point.
Don't jump to 6 unless you like shooting
fish in a barrel... ;-)
------------
Sorry if it sounds bombastic and pedantic
'twas not meant to drool Ivory tower dust
on this thread...
------------
thanks--mel
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 03 2004 - 15:56:12 BST