From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 08:32:02 BST
PART 2.
Paul and All.
On 7 August you wrote:
4. The "LEVELS AS ONE EQUAL VALUE" argument
Bo:
> > "but the value increments are BETWEEN the levels not inside them.
> > (Stop, hold your fire!) Take biology for example. A mammal is a more
> > complex organism than a reptile, but when it comes to biological
> > survival the latter is best. The "lower" patterns are most genuine
> > biology, but the said value spawned biological growth until complexity
> > was so great that one of its uppermost patterns took off ...on what
> > became social purpose. And this goes for all levels."
> Paul:
> If this is true, how does Pirsig justify his statement in Lila about
> the morality of vegetarianism? Is a cow not at a higher biological
> level of evolution than a carrot?
I don't think I deviate from the MOQ, rather point to the higher pattern
as "better" in the sense that it is further AWAY from the original
rigidity (LILA Chapter 11) Yet, is most "resistant" at the lower end of
the scale. Regarding biology, the mammal is definitely at the high end
(in the said sense), but more vulnerable to changing inorganic
conditions than plants .... that have survived all mass extinctions.
> Why does he talk of intellectual patterns being "of higher quality"
> than others?
The same goes for intellect, but here again the impossible "thinking"
definition shows. How can thinking (as such) evolve? It can but then
in the sense that "intellectual thinking" is better than "social thinking"
..which is better than "biological thinking" , but this makes for a MOT
and is not where you want, rather that Q-intellect's thought-patterns
have improved from ...from what to what? I find nothing to hold on to
what is the basic value? Spend some time on that Paul! While the
S/O-intellect clearly have a beginning, an evolution and a point where
it gives rise to an out-growth. The static aspect of intellect seems to
pass you by completely.
> Your "levels as all one equal value" leads to some
> limitations in the explanatory power of the MOQ (why was it better for
> homo erectus to evolve to homo sapiens?) and seems to diminish the
> applicability of its moral framework.
The various "homos"(!) were social beings and that value had started
to influence biology, so the Sapiens' huge brain wasn't all biological
(caused) Your question might as well be about the monkey-ape
evolution, and the answer is the same "away from" into greater
complexity.
5. The "CONTAINER PROBLEM" argument
> > Bo writes:
> > "You see no problems with the MOQ being "an intellectual pattern"?
> > Hmm. To me it's the "container problem"; the whole MOQ supposed to be
> > contained inside a smaller box of one of its lesser parts and ooks
> > like a logical bend and makes me postulate the MOQ as a "rebel" 4th or
> > budding 5th level. (whatever is acceptable) because this makes the MOQ
> > contained in itself which is "allowed" in my opinion."
> Paul:
> There is no logic to your solution. Even if the MOQ is a fifth level
> within its own structure you have the same "container problem". If the
> MOQ is not a static pattern within a level, what is it? According to
> the MOQ, it must be Dynamic Quality. This seems linked to the
> Metaphysics of Metaphysics postulate.
No logic? Phew! There are none as blind as those who don't see.
6. The "STATIC CANNOT BE DYNAMIC, THEREFORE INTELLECT
CANNOT BE AESTHETIC" argument
> Bo writes:
> "As the present top level Intellect is our age's REASON and reason can
> neither explain Quality nor its many variants. That's the whole point
> of my insistence upon Q-intellect being S/OL (subject-object logic).
> Intellect can't explain any of these ambiguous yet unavoidable
> phenomena. It can't explain intelligence* in animals without reverting
> to the slanderous "instinct" term, it can't explain our sense of
> beauty..etc, .but places them all in its subjective box. Not part of
> reality! I don't claim that the S/OL-intellect explains and/or support
> these outsider phenomena, on the contrary I claim that Q-intellect
> must be S/OL because it DOESN'T support them! This is the great
> fallacy to believe that a STATIC level may contain/explain/support the
> dynamic aspects of existence and is why I am a little exasperated over
> the "thinking"/ "manipulation of symbols" intellect as if this is
> capable of integrating them ...... Come to think of it, even
> "thinking" is one such. One may as well wish for an intellect that
> could explain/contain DQ itself ...and that is the next fallacy.
> Calling the MOQ an intellectual pattern.
> Paul:
> I think that static quality can be defined as patterned aesthetic,
> Dynamic Quality is therefore unpatterned aesthetic, and Quality is
> both.
This makes for the a Metaphysics of Beauty and nothing is gained.
Aesthetics, intuition, inspiration .... are all different aspects of the
central Quality. Can't we leave it at that?
> I think that overlooking the aesthetic nature of static experience,
> including intellectual patterns, is a major misunderstanding of
> Pirsig, especially ZMM!
Static means stable so once a level is established it can't change -
except grow in the said manner. Intellect is now the barrier that DQ
will have to overcome to move on. All talk about a dynamic intellect is
nonsense, there will be a an intellectual pattern so instable that it will
go off on a purpose of its own. Phaedrus of ZMM conceived of such a
pattern ..and the rest is history.
> Hope this helps
Yes, to see what the MOQ is up against ;-).
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 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 08:32:42 BST