From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Jun 12 2005 - 09:52:18 BST
Hi Allen
On 10 Jun 2005 at 20:33, Allen Barrows wrote:
> Hello Bo i have had to change computers because the old one was not
> working well.
I see, and also see that you have put much effort behind this
multi-instalment post.
> We are off to a good begining and it is an interesting thinking.
> It looks like we agree up to this point at which i shall take over.
> And as intellect (in ZMM) is the "prism" that splits Quality (pre-
> intellectual awareness) into subjects and objects ... the intellectual
> level of the later MOQ ought to have become the (value of) the S/O
> divide.
> I understand what you say here Bo. I like the prism metaphor it is
> very appealing indeed. Quality is one and it is split into subjects
> and objects as it passes through the prism. One goes in and som comes
> out. I think this works only if the prism and som are the same thing
> or if you say value is the prism then som is the product of a
> preintellectual value/prism. It looks like you are saying prism for
> value if i have you right.
It isn't easy to avoid such things, but it goes for all levels. It
sounds as a value "something" creates the patterns, while it it
really is one and the same.
> > In the MOQ, experience is
> > categorised by intellect (as noted above, primarily into the four
> > static levels and a referring term for Dynamic Quality).
> But here I part company. "Categorized by intellect" implies that the
> MOQ (that does this categorization) is an intellectual pattern and
> that is plain impossible.
> You have misunderstood something here Bo and this misunderstanding
> makes you think people are suggesting the impossable. The MOQ does not
> categorise at all bo. The MOQ has categories within it but both the
> categories within the MOQ and the MOQ itself are patterns of
> intellectual value.
Intellect is supposed to be part of the static realm of MOQ's
overall Dynamic/Static system and by no twist of logic can it (the
MOQ) be seen as a sub-set of its own
> I think this is why people reckon the MOQ is
> idealism,
Yes! That's my opinion too, but Pirsig has repeatedly denied
idealism as having any special affinity for the MOQ.
> because even when it says there are social and organic and
> inorganic values all these are suggestions being made by the
> intellect.
This is intellect peering down at the lower levels imposing its own
S/O value upon them, seeing everything as intellectual
suggestions about a something "out there". Let's not be fooled by
it.
> People then can not figure out why everything is just
> intellect.
"People" of this group seems just too willing. ;-)
> Social organic and inorganic patterns do not call
> themselves anything the only thing that can represent them and not be
> them are intellectual patterns. As Anthony McWatts book says
Your'e right organic and inorganic levels were from before
language (maybe the social level too for the most part) but this
doesn't mean that they only exist in "language". You see, by now
you have made language all there is, which is the subjective half
of SOM.
This transferred to the MOQ makes its intellectual level SOM's
subjective half, but this I vehemently protest, intellectual value is
a very special outlook that distinguishes between what is
objective and what is subjective.
> Intellectuality
> occurs when these customs as well as biological and inorganic patterns
> are designated with a sign that stands for them and these signs are
> manipulated independently of the patterns they stand for. ‘Intellect’
> can then be defined very loosely as the level of independently
> manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can be described as
> the rules of this sign manipulation.
> As you can see symbols can simply float away from what they point to.
The above is Pirsig from Lila's Child, a definition aimed at
repairing the "intellect=thinking" sidetrack that he admitted to in
the PT letter. But this definition is merely one of language
(concepts manipulated by rules of syntax and grammar)
something I see as the social pattern that became intellects
"vehicle".
But you have some more to say:
> Some might say this is a difference between objective appearence and
> subjective thought but it does not have to be at all it seems to me
> because grammer can manipulate symbols independantly of whether any
> objects or subjects are percieved.
OK I see and agree, but the thing is that my favorite people of old
(social reality in the MOQ) used language without caring about
any such difference. Language was part of that malleable magic
reality where rituals (chanting f.ex) could change it. Social
existence has its present day reminiscence in religions and
prayers
The intellectual LEVEL occurred when the difference (between
what is symbolized and the symbol was "discovered" (just one
aspect of it) But dear Allen if you admitted to my "intellect the
S/O prism", all the rest is a bit inconsequential Don't you see
that?
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 : Sun Jun 12 2005 - 09:55:48 BST