MD Static Latching and the problem with the intellectual level

From: Michael Hamilton (thethemichael@gmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 13 2005 - 12:59:14 BST

  • Next message: Michael Hamilton: "Re: MD Access to Quality"

    Hi everyone, particularly those of you involved in the SOL debate,

    A while ago, responding to Ham, I unwisely promised a comprehensive piece on
    the dynamic/static divide of the MOQ. After that I went on holiday, and when
    I came back I didn't have much clue what form it would take, and moreover I
    detected a certain low quality in the discussion at that point. However,
    I've continued reading the MD avidly, and over the last few days it seems
    some progress has been made. Recent posts between the two sides of the SOL
    debate have made for particularly interesting reading. After a good deal of
    thinking about the static/dynamic interaction, I think I have something to
    say about the enigma presented by the intellectual level.

    I recently expienced an insight about Pirsig's concept of static latching:
    evolutionary revolutions (i.e. the emergence of what in hindsight we can
    label as a "new static level") only occur in conditions where there exist
    VERY well-defined static patterns. For example, the emergence of language,
    probably the most significant cultural pattern, requires almost totally
    uniformity on the biological level, i.e. a total harmony of our faculties of
    making and detecting sounds. If human DNA gave significant variations
    between our larynxes and between our ranges of hearing, aural communication
    would be totally impossible.

    Similarly, the kind of _intellectual_ communication we're engaging in here
    is only made possible by near-uniformity on the social level. Our agreement
    on the use of a static set of 26 letters gives an enormous range of
    possibilities to dynamically arrange these static letters according to Need
    (the dynamic motivator) - in this case our desire to clarify the
    intellectual level and general structure of the MOQ. Further static
    agreement is required regarding the meanings of these arrangements of
    letters, and where there is discrepancy in our understanding of words (for
    example "mind" - more on this later, I hope), intellectual quality breaks
    down, because there is a lack of static support on the social level. So,
    very high degrees of static-ness are necessary for opening up wide vistas of
    dynamic potential - these static latches might be termed "parameters" of the
    new emergent level.

    What has this got to do with the problem of defining the intellectual level?

    The apparent lack of a level above intellect suggests, in the light of what
    I've just written, that intellect remains a very chaotic realm. It is the
    most difficult to isolate of all the levels, because the other levels have
    evolved sufficient uniformity/harmony to support the existence of higher
    levels. Not so for intellect - it's still in considerable conflict with
    social value and is a long way from evolving sufficiently harmonious static
    "parameters" of its own.

    DMB's recent comments about explaining the MOQ to people from different
    cultures provoked other thoughts about this problem. Can the intellectual
    level in its entirity be understood without extensive experience of the
    thought of other cultures, where thought has been built on a different
    consensus/uniformity of social patterns? What I am suggesting is that SOL
    may be true from our Western perspective, but that there may possibly be
    more to discover. The infiltration of Western culture into all areas of the
    world in which there exist suffient social developments to support
    alternative intellectual patterns will make such a project extremely
    difficult, and this for me highlights the evil represented by this
    destruction of social and intellectual variety.

    Basically, I'm saying that, given our lack of static "parameters" in
    intellect at this point in its evolution, and given our limited cultural
    perspectives, it may be extremely difficult to define the intellectual
    level. But I'm not saying that we shouldn't try! I'll continue to read with
    great interest.

    Regards,
    Mike

    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 : Mon Jun 13 2005 - 13:05:40 BST