From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Mon Jun 13 2005 - 15:54:54 BST
Mike,
I am a MOQ dissenter, and a major part of my dissent is that I do not
see intellect as another level of SQ. Your post shows why. My view is
that intellect needs to be considered at the same level as Quality,
which is to say that it is inherently dynamic/static (or as I like to
put it, Quality and Intellect are two names for the same (non-)thing).
So while there are static patterns of intellectual value, it is
intellect that created them, and intellect that disrupts them
dynamically to create new static patterns. Hence, to treat intellect as
just SQ, the way Pirsig does, is to deny the nature of intellect.
Reflective, creative thinking is DQ/SQ interaction, not SQ. (And I agree
that both D and S need to be treated equally). I would also add that all
"static patterns of value" are manifestations of intellect, as is
implied by the words "pattern" and "value". To be a pattern, and for
that pattern to have value, implies intellect.
Hence, we should not be trying to define intellect, as it is the source
of all definition and distinction. In sum, it is what creates.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: Michael Hamilton
To: moq_discuss@moq.org
Sent: Monday, June 13, 2005 5:59 AM
Subject: MD Static Latching and the problem with the intellectual
level
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 - 21:49:42 BST