From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Sat Jul 19 2003 - 03:13:19 BST
Squonk,
[Squonk prev]> > The logos is a new mythos. There is no difference in kind
or
> > type, only size.
>
[Scott prev]> There is still plenty of unreason going around. We are very
far from being
> ruled by reason.
>
> squonk: Reason is found in harmonious relationships. It is an aesthetic in
my
> view
I think reason is undefinable. It is the mark of Quality on the intellectual
level. Like "good" one can only bring in equally undefinable terms. Like:
what makes a relationship harmonious.
In my view it is only aesthetic by grace of metaphor, but that is not a big
difference. My point is that it is still rare, and so does not define the
current mythos. One has only to listen to politicians, to observe people
interact. And I agree that reason does not require subject/object
consciousness, but that is what we normally operate in.
[Scott prev]> It is a choice of how we wish to use the words. As I've said
before, if we
> use "intellect" as "symbol manipulation" then we must find some other
> terminology for identifying the fourth level.
>
> squonk: What's this 'we' crap? Leave me out of this please! Thanks
Ok, I'll leave you out of it. It was a rhetorical 'we', but nevermind. I
want to focus on the conflict thing, and you don't, so we (non-rhetorical)
are just talking passed each other on this question.
- Scott
----- Original Message -----
From: <SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2003 7:40 AM
Subject: MD Artistic creations of the intellect
> Let me restate it. You say that the intellectual level has been around
since
> the social level began.
>
> Squonk: No. I say the intellectual level has been around since prehistory.
>
> I say that the fourth level only becomes an
> identifiable MOQ level when it can be in conflict.
>
> squonk: You can say what you like. Symbolic manipulation is primarily in
> response to DQ like everything else. That makes it its own level.
>
> That has only been the
> case for the last 2500 years. So either one must define "intellect" as
> starting with the S/O divide (or, equivalently, with the emergence of the
> autonomous individual) or one must use a different word to name the fourth
> level.
>
> squonk: intellect does not require subjects or objects. Subjects and
objects
> are artistic creations of the intellect. We don't need them to think, and
we
> don't have to value them.
>
> [Scott prev]> My position is that mythos, past or present, is third level,
> and logos
> > is fourth level.
> >
> > squonk: The logos is a new mythos. There is no difference in kind or
> > type, only size.
>
> There is still plenty of unreason going around. We are very far from being
> ruled by reason.
>
> squonk: Reason is found in harmonious relationships. It is an aesthetic in
my
> view.
>
>
> [Scott prev]> It is when I rationally object to a social pattern
> > that I deem harmful (e.g., too much television watching among
> > Americans, too much "my country right or wrong", etc.) that (or so I
> > hope) I am in a fourth/third level conflict. When I shout "free love"
> > I am deluding myself on that score. And so on. There is no evidence
> > of this kind of rational objection to the contemporary mythos before
> > 500 BC and plenty afterwards. Hence I see the emergence of the fourth
> > level at that time.
> >
> > squonk: I agree, we are talking about rationality not intellect.
>
> It is a choice of how we wish to use the words. As I've said before, if we
> use "intellect" as "symbol manipulation" then we must find some other
> terminology for identifying the fourth level.
>
> squonk: What's this 'we' crap? Leave me out of this please! Thanks.
>
>
> [Squonk prev]> "I feel the intellect is primarily an aesthetic sense of
> Quality."
> [Scott prev] I would say, rational sense of Quality. Aesthetic sense of
> Quality
> > currently depends on the S/O divide (this is complicated, so I won't
> > go into it now), and -- or so I conjecture -- involves its momentary
> > transcendence.
> >
> > squonk: Rationality is an art in my view. It is primarily aesthetic
> > and requires no objects.
>
> "In your view". This is not a common view. It has its point, but Pirsig
> never subsumed rationality to art.
>
> squonk: Take another look. Consider the construction of the artefact
example
> in ZAMM. Peace of mind is required before you produce good work.
>
>
> [Squonk prev]> "I feel the creations of the intellect can be taken to be
the
> mythos."
> [Scott prev]> I see the creations of the intellect to be science,
> philosophy,
> > theology, art (not necessarily an exhaustive list). These activities
> > depend on the mythos, and change it (so now our current mythos is
> > dualistic), but the creations of intellect are -- like the MOQ --
> > often in conflict with the mythos. Prior to 500 BC I see no evidence
> > of such conflct.
> >
> > squonk: Quantum mechanics is not dualistic. And Quantum mechanics is
> > rational.
>
> So? QM has not yet become integrated into the mythos. I wish it would.
>
> squonk: My point is that QM is an artistic creation of the intellect.
>
> >
> [Squonk prev]> "I feel our mythos is dominated by artistic creations of
the
> intellect
> > which happen to be thought of in terms of subjects and objects."
> [Scott prev] Why artistic? I am aware that you think of mathematics (and I
> presume
> > science) as capable of "beauty", and I agree that mathematicians (and
> > myself) have expressed this idea, but I think it is a case of using
> > "beauty" (or "aesthetic") metaphorically. A work of art shows its
> > beauty from the outside, while mathematics shows its Quality from the
> > inside. I do not think they are the same. To conflate everything to
> > aesthetics is not what Pirsig did (he called his work a Metaphysics
> > of Quality, not a Metaphysics of Beauty) which is why I wonder why
> > you consider yourself to not be adding anything to Pirsig's work.
> >
> > squonk: No, i am not adding to Pirsig's work. You are fighting
> > Pirsig's work.
>
> Pirsig did not subsume ethics under aesthetics. He did not call his
pattern
> of ideas a Metaphysics of Beauty. He did not equate Quality and Beauty. He
> subtitled Lila, "An Inquiry into Morals", not "An Inquiry into Art". If
you
> expect me to believe that you are not adding to Pirsig's work, I would
> expect some defense of your vocabulary, not a simple denial.
>
> squonk: Quality ideas are beautiful don't you find?
>
>
> >
> [Scott prev]> Then there is the phrase "thought of in terms of subjects
and
> > objects", and I believe elsewhere you say that the S/O divide is an
> > intellectual act. In some esoteric sense it might be, but it is not
> > an act that we make consciously, and (I believe) never did. It was an
> > evolution of consciousness, not some person's or group of persons'
> > idea.
> >
> > squonk: Differentiation's are of value. What is you and not-you
> > involves inorganic, very much noticeable biological, and social
> > values. That intellect is called upon to assert the same value
> > differentials is hardly to be found surprising is it?
>
> You are assuming that our consciousness has been basically the same since
> humans came into existence. I do not assume that, so I doubt that we can
> come to any sort of agreement.
>
> squonk: When you say consciousness i feel you are saying our culture's
> Dynamic response to the sum total of its static history. Western
intellectual
> history has one thing in common with all others: It involves the
manipulation of
> symbols.
>
>
> [Squonk prev:]> "The metaphysics of Quality is older than ancient Greek
> culture, but
> > has been modified to include evolution."
> >
> [Scott prev]> Yes, as Pirsig describes in Ch. 30 of Lila, the basic notion
> that all
> > comes from Quality is older. This stage Barfield calls "original
> > participation". But this "notion" was not an intellectual one, but a
> > perceptual one. Our current stage is one where this perceiving of
> > Quality has died out (with rare exceptions, one being aesthetic
> > moments, another being "Aha" moments), and (following Barfield) it is
> > this dying out that makes the intellectual possible.
> >
> > squonk: The first indications of art (70,000 BC) suggest that
> > intellect is an aesthetic appreciation of Quality. Intellect creates
> > art in my view, and the one of the primary codes it must follow is
> > harmony.
>
> Maybe, but it doesn't address my point. Call it intellect, call it art,
call
> it anything you want, you still have no third/fourth level conflict until
> 2500 years ago.
>
> squonk: The conflict between social and intellectual patterns involves a
> symbolic formulation of Quality - truth. We must remember that truth is
useful but
> not Quality!
>
> >
> [Scott prev]> But, with
> > the MOQ (and other philosophies, like Barfield's and Wilber's), one
>
> > sees the intellectual level rediscovering it. When (if) the MOQ
> > becomes ingrained (and we are a very long way from that), we
> > facilitate the recovery of that Quality in our everyday lives (what
> > Barfield calls "final participation"). But it will be different from
> > original participation, in that it will be seen as Quality from
> > within, not as coming from the gods.
> >
> > squonk: We are off into Barfield country here aren't we. You will not
> > find it at all surprising if i wish to linger in MoQ country? To put
> > it simply, i don't think Barfield had a Metaphysics of Quality in his
> > back pocket when he wrote this stuff?
>
> Do you really think that Pirsig has written the last word on everything?
If
> so, you are not paying attention to him, since he said that to do
philosophy
> is not just studying existing philosophers. In my opinion, Barfield has a
> better insight into the significance of the changes in consciousness in
the
> last 3000 years than Pirsig, since that is what he (Barfield) has focused
> on, and so the MOQ should be revised slightly to take advantage of that
> insight. Isn't it your opinion that "rationality is an art in my view",
and
> you wish to modify Pirsig's work accordingly?
>
> - Scott
>
> squonk: This is covered above. I don't feel Mr. Pirsig has written the
last
> word on everything. I do feel rationality is an art. Rationality is an art
> because it is a static repertoire of symbols responding to DQ. The results
are our
> creations and exhibit harmony and beauty.
> Squonk
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sat Jul 19 2003 - 03:14:12 BST