From: Scott Roberts (jse885@localnet.com)
Date: Fri Nov 04 2005 - 20:57:49 GMT
Bo,
> Scott said:
> I hold that if one accepts Barfield's thesis, then the MOQ has to be
> modified, and the way it has to be modified is how it characterizes
> the fourth level, and, related to that, in how it characterizes
> intellect. In the first place, the fourth level is not the birth of
> the intellect, but the movement of intellect from outside to inside.
Bo said:
Your "intellect" seems identical to Quality and this has (with the
4th.level) moved from outside to inside, but what is "outside" in
this context? The social level, or are all levels prior to the 4th
"outside"? Or are there levels at all in your MOQ?
Scott:
Yes, as I've stated many times, I consider Intellect and Quality (and
Consciousness) to be names for the same (non-)thing.
As mentioned in the next snippet, "inside" and "outside" are modernist
terms. "Outside" is what we call the contents of sense perception, or what
we hear from others. "Inside" is our own thoughts, feelings, and will.
Scott had continued:
> But even that is seeing it from our modernist point of view -- prior
> to this movement, there wasn't an inside, and so it is correct to say,
> a la SOL, that the fourth level coincides with the S/O divide (but
> whether that is S/O[1] and S/O[2] has to be dealt with -- see below).
Bo said:
Now THAT is something else ;-) But why not just S/O? The 4th
level has so many off-springs that we will run out of numbers.
Scott:
Because S[1] and S[2] mean different things (likewise of course O[1] and
O[2]). The MOQ says that it will use 'subject' to mean social and
intellectual SPOV. That coincides with S[1]. It does not in the least
coincide with S[2]. So if we don't distinguish which we are talking about we
end up in all sorts of confusion. Further, the fact that the MOQ means only
S[1] by 'subject' means that the MOQ has not at all gotten past SOM, if by
SOM is meant S[2]O[2]M. SOL makes some sort of sense if the SO is SO[2]. It
is just wrong if it is SO[1].
Scott said:
> Barfield shows how it
> came to be as an evolution of consciousness, which implies that
> further evolution of consciousness may move us beyond it. And indeed,
> Barfield calls this further evolution moving to the state of "final
> participation". (As an aside, Barfield in his preface to the second
> edition of "Saving the Appearances" makes clear that this is not some
> Absolutely Final state, just the end of this adventure into S/O --
> what happens after that who knows.)
Bo said:
Here your "Intellect", Pirsig's "Quality" and Barfield's
"Consciousness" converges. My contention is that there are
several grand concepts that (can) be the base for other MOQ-like
metaphysics. My puzzle is why replace Quality with Intellect? The
4th level will still (as said) be subject X/object X.
Scott:
It's actually Barfield's Intellect also. He ties it to the Logos doctrine as
in the prologue to St. John's Gospel ("By [the Logos] were all things made
that were made...") Myself, I'm not quite convinced that Jesus was the
incarnation of the Logos, nor do I view the Logos in theistic terms, but
that's a separate debate.
I do not want to replace Quality with Intellect. I want to use both words
(and Consciousness, and maybe other words, like Love). As to why add
Intellect? To correct some mistakes that Pirsig made, namely, seeing
intellect as just the fourth level of SQ (ignoring its Dynamic aspect), and
so characterizing DQ as "pre-intellectual".
- Scott
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 : Fri Nov 04 2005 - 21:48:59 GMT