From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Jul 07 2003 - 07:17:35 BST
On 5 Jul 2003 at 14:00, Steve Peterson wrote:
> Bo:
> > Of course: A metaphysics (theory of everything) crystallize all of
> > existence in its mold, but if the Quality Idea is seen as an
> > all-intellectual pattern we are faced with the paradox of a part
> > containing the whole.
> Steve:
> A theory of everything can never be expected to literally contain
> everything but only to be description of everything. A theory of
> everything should then be a theory that can describe theories. I
> don't see a paradox. The MOQ says that the MOQ is an intellectual
> pattern of value.
Hi Steve.
Nice to meet you for "real".
Pirsig states that we can't live without some presuppositions about reality - a
metaphysics, but this is some grander kind than the Aristotle sort and
something we don't regard as as a "description" .... we don't "regard" it at
all, it's reality itself. SOM was such a basic presupposition and thus
contained everything. I'm not very computer-versed but there is an
innermost "shell" that not even "nerds" don't think about ...it is as it is. That
was SOM's place
The reason it could dominate our innermost (how great its geographical
sphere of influence is/was can be discussed) so was that no-one knew any
SOM. I remember that the early critics of Pirsig went to extremes to deny
any SOM, naturally because the moment a theory of everything (TOE) is
confronted with a greater TOE, its spell is broken.
About the difficulties I see with the MOQ being an intellectual pattern of one
of its own STATIC levels - and why I want intellect to be the S/O divide
(SOM stripped of its M) is connected with this.
> Steve:
> Exactly. But its value lies in that it is a metaphor that points to
> what is not static.
Hmm. ...The MOQ a metaphor that points to what is not static ...?! Steve, I
have given this a long consideration. I believe I get your point and you are
almost there, a little nudge and ...Take a deep breath and follow this line of
reasoning: If we consider the Quality Idea (I like to call it) a "rebel intellectual
pattern" - something that looks upon intellect as the bigoted place where the
METAPHOR/REALITY DIVIDE is considered the innermost reality. The Q-
Idea has seen a greater reality and knows that this is not REALLY so, but
that it is a great STATIC value within its own system. There is no way it can
stay at home permanently and make intellect a "better place", there is an
eternal conflict that will require that the Q-idea would have to give up its own
cause and repent. This is the SOL-interpretation.
"The Q-idea giving up its cause" is allowing the "metaphor/reality" dualism
into MOQ's ground structure (other than as ONE static layer). It's not only
metaphor/reality, the whole SOM subject/object virus spreads itself inside it.
Remember that the MOQ is founded on the very base, that - FROM SOM'S
PREMISES - one inevitably ends up with the conclusion that everything is
symbol, metaphor, or MIND!. With tongue slightly in cheek the MOQ can
can be said to be a metaphysics of metaphors, of symbols of thinking of
language ...etc. There have been many suggestions for other "innermost
realities" up through the years, but QUALITY is best!!
> Bo:
> > Btw. Pirsig
> > says that a "set of ideas" is socially approved. Even ideas are
> > treated at the social level.
> Steve:
> Can you explain what you mean by "treated at the social level"? Do
> you mean that inter-subjective agreement is important to the stability
> of intellectual patterns of value? I would agree. How could we
> recognize a pattern if it is not repeated and shared?
What I meant was just that ideas or thinking or language once were part of
social reality. You say that "inter-subjective agreement" (between people
no?) is important to the stability of INTELLECTUAL patterns of value". If
language - per se - is intellectual, then the intellectual LEVEL is as old as
language - as the human brain even, but Pirsig of LILA says that the
transition took place AFTER Homer's time.
The annotating Pirsig says:
> >'For purposes of MOQ precision, let's say that the
> > intellectual level is the same as mind. It is the
> > collection and manipulation of symbols, created in the
> > brain, that stand for patterns of experience.'
I think he says "..the idea of '...collection and manipulation of symbols as
different from the physical counterpart in the brain' became the intellectual
level of experience".
> That doesn't make ideas social patterns of value, however. Social
> values are recognized as thoughtless mimetic behaviors that are
> required for the evolution of society but are no longer to be equated
> with society itself since modern societies are comprised of
> individuals who participate in intellectual patterns of value as well
> as inorganic, biological, and social ones.
Yes, modern societies/countries are heavily controlled by intellect, I agree
completely, but what about societies before intellect's emergence? They
consisted of people who lived in cities, spoke - even wrote - traded ...etc
Thoughtless, mimic behaviour? They weren't exactly bee-hives?
Sincerely
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 : Mon Jul 07 2003 - 07:18:38 BST