From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Oct 03 2005 - 19:47:07 BST
Case and Congregation.
2 Oct. you wrote:
> [Case]
> I could go with something like: during the act of perception we create
> an inner representation of the outer world. But to suggest that our
> thought processes bring the physical world into being... I don't think
> so.
I understand that you have read the empiricists about senses
(perception) being the stage where value is added, that there
aren't such things "out there". This is SOM's internal struggle
between its idealists and materialists. The MOQ rejects the SOM
thereby declaring this struggle invalid. It's assertion (in my view)
is that INTELLECT is the inner/outer distiction - the S/O
aggregate!! Intellect has nothing to do with thoughts as you
know.
> The only evidence I can think of regarding subject/object
> distinctions in animals was done by Gordan Gallup. He places a dot of
> rouge on a chimps forehead and showed the ape a mirror. The chimps
> would look in the mirror and then touch the dot of rouge. This
> suggests that the chimps were aware themselves and that the image in
> the mirror was them.
Yes, I know that experiment, it shows primate intelligence which
is the precondition for the social development. Gorillas and
chimps do in fact live in tribes with complicated social rituals, and
had they been the highest (no humans) they might have
developed their societies to the stage of spawning the intellectual
level, but the humans have long ago closed the window of
opportunity for all other species.
> I am not altogether sure what you mean by social
> reality humans but there have been extensive studies of tribal peoples
> all over the world and they have not been found to be fundenmentally
> different from regular folks.
"Social reality humans" means the alleged period when the social
level ruled - the tribal era if you like - but these people were
different in the sense of not having developed societies that
support intellect. But please note, such people didn't lack in
intelligence and social sense. Do not, because there are lots of
such cultures on the earth.
> [Case]
> I think MoQ presents a solution, not the only one BTW, to some of the
> problems of SOM. I think it shows that static and dynamic values
> operate internally and externally. But I do not think Pirsig says that
> SOM is to be thrown out.
Right, the SOM is not to be thrown out. It is to be "encased" by
the MOQ and the bone of contention is HOW. "Orthodoxy" says
that the 2 lower are objective and the 2 upper are subjective,
while I maintain that SOM is the intellectually level.
> Rather he points to a better way of
> understanding it.
Exactly!
> Beyond that I think the separation between inner and
> outer is literal and unbridgable. We are separated from the physical
> world by space and time. We can do nothing more than preceive it with
> our senses and reshape it in our heads.
You need a MOQ crash course Case. The static values are real
enough, but the MOQ postulates that they aren't so if examined
closely enough. Intellect will reveal its social roots, society its
biological and biology its inorganic and - as we know - matter will
show its notorious quantum weirdness. Your confidence in the
inner/outer separation is soon to be shaken.
If you are observant you will see why the intellect=SOM method
is the only viable one. Orthodoxy supposes that the inner/outer
separation is immutable, thus its rejection of SOM is just window
dressing. SOM rules on in the MOQ! While SOL makes short
thrift of its metaphysical component 'M' and keeps its S/O value. I
constantly hope that someone will report to this place who will
understand the enormity of Phaedrus initial insight - and also of
what Pirsig says in LILA - but what has become trivialized by the
later development.
> [Case]
> I am saying that civilation has made striking advancements over the
> past 700 years because, starting with the rediscovery of Greek
> literature during the crusades, Eupopeans began to concentrate on
> measureing and manipulating the external world. Discussions about our
> internal private worlds are not very productive because we have no
> basis for agreeing or disagreeing. .
Right, Renaissance was the re-birth of the intellectual movement
begun by the Greeks. The external world was measured and
manipulated - correct - but the internal world also became a
scientific subject by the humanities; Psychology,
psychiatry,sociology, ANTHROPOLOGY ...etc. This created
modernity and must be kept as intellectual value.
> If my wife tells me she has a
> headache I can suspect she is just trying to get me to leave her alone
> but I can hardly call her a liar. The same holds for any discussion of
> consciousness and internal private events.
:-) but seriously the value of intellect is (for instance) seeing
headache as a psychic reaction to a physical condition - not
being demons at work.
> We make progress in the
> accumulation of knowledge by talking about those things we do have
> some basis for agreeing on. The speed of light, the rate of plant
> growth, crop yields, mathematics, etc are intersubjective in that each
> of us in our own little worlds can find something in common to agree
> about.
True, MOQ's saying that intellect will dissolve into its social origin
if scrutinized closely does not mean that there aren't any physical
constants (speed of light ...etc) but that these things require an
independent subject to discover them.
> Finally I think the MoQ as expressed by most here, is totally
> bogged down in this static hierarchical levels business, which as I
> have stated several times in various places I find to be
> counterproductive. At the heart of the MoQ is the undefined center,
> Quality. I take the meanings of Static and Dynamic quite literally to
> mean Order and Chaos, Stabilty and Flux. Most conflate DQ and Quality.
> This makes no sense to me at all.
I find the DQ/SQ metaphysical split the stroke of genius solving
the riddles (platypi) of the Subject/Object world. Your finding this
counterproductive must mean that you either haven't seen the
problems or that they not bothering you. Lucky fellow.
Bo
PS
God I work my head off to teach people the MOQ while the other
veterans don't lift a finger to promote this most revolutionary
theory since Plato.
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 Oct 03 2005 - 21:20:41 BST