From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Jun 07 2005 - 12:28:40 BST
Hi Wim and all parties interested
I start from here:
> I understand your point as: the 4th level of the MoQ is identical with
> subject-object thinking, or rather: with the value of that type of
> thinking.
I do.
> I mentioned to Platt in my 1 Jun 6:21 +0200 posting four types of
> thinking/consciousness: > subject-subject thinking (primitive
> consciousness) and subject-object > thinking (modern consciousness).
> To be added (we hope) of course: Quality > consciousness...
Subject-subject thinking (primitive consciousness). You see that
as social level "thinking" ...OK, but maybe this thinking terms just
muddles things.
> Another
> elements of the intellectual level may be spiritual > and/or aesthetic
> consciousness. I agree that 'consciousness' is too ambiguous. It
> doesn't sound right to write 'spiritual thinking' and 'aesthetic
> thinking', however. Do you have an alternative term to connect with
> spirituality and aesthetics?
"Spiritual" is definitely an element of the intellectual level in the
sense that SPIRITUAL/MATERIAL is another S/O.
If I understand you correctly you mean that the MOQ must save
the spiritual and/or aesthetics elements of existence and THAT I
agree with but not by relegating it to intellect. It is as static as
static comes.
> You probably agree that there is no higher level yet and that apart
> from those 4 levels there's only Dynamic Quality (the value of
> changing in the right direction).
It did not make it into my essay, but I have dropped the notion of
the MOQ a 5th level, but I still see it as "out of intellect". A
system that has made intellect a subset of itself, can't be a sub-
set of intellect.
> Do the value of primitive,
> subject-subject thinking (us<>them, describing 'things' as spirited),
> the value of spirituality and the value of aesthetics belong to the
> 3rd level in your opinion or are they pure Dynamic Quality?
Hmm, a most subtle issue. The social level can definitely be said
to be "spirited", not in the (intellectual) sense of dead matter
imbued with spirits, but rather a reality where everything is alive.
> What then defines the 3rd level according to you?
No level is defined for the reason that Pirsig saw them as self-
evident. The inorganic & biological levels still seems so, but
even if the word "society" is known from before, it doesn't quite
carry the MOQ content of a reality plane in the same class as the
physical and biological ones. And when it comes to intellect our
instinctive definition (of it being the mental realm) shows that no
MOQ level really corresponds to their somish counterparts.
I have come to define the intellectual level as the value of the
S/O distinction, but turning to the social level I really don't know
how to formulate it: "The value of communities"? It sounds a bit
bland compared to the many qualities we see manifested there,
but maybe it fits. F.ex. Churches as social patterns and their
"communion" sacrament. At some more fundamental plane I see
emotions as the social "expression", but that's another thing.
Aesthetics or (sense of) Beauty or Art. Don't we agree that it is
identical to (sense of) Value? In other words DQ that doesn't
belong anywhere, but is always up ahead of the (at any time)
uppermost level. Pirsig speaks of an art code above intellect.
Enough!
Bo
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 : Tue Jun 07 2005 - 12:33:34 BST