From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 12:45:18 BST
Hi Bo
Bo:
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.
Paul:
Yes, more Dynamic=less stable, more static=more resistant. But this
still means that there is a scale of quality in each level, which is my
argument.
> Why does he talk of intellectual patterns being "of higher quality"
> than others?
Bo:
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!
Paul:
"Therefore, to the question, "What is the purpose of all this
intellectual knowledge?" the Metaphysics of Quality answers, "The
fundamental purpose of knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve
society." Knowledge has grown away from this historic purpose and become
and end in itself just as society has grown away from its original
purpose of preserving physical human beings and become and end in
itself, and this growing away from original purposes toward greater
Quality is a moral growth." Lila p344
Of course, this quote is from Pirsig, who clearly doesn't understand the
MOQ as well as you ;-)
I think the basic value of thinking is the conceptual organisation and
explanation of experience. Intellectual patterns evolve towards better
explanations of experience.
Bo:
The static aspect of intellect seems to
pass you by completely.
Paul:
Examples?
Bo:
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.
Paul:
A brain isn't biological? I understood that "homo sapiens sapiens"
refers to anatomically defined physical beings, as such is purely a
biological term. I will stand corrected if a biologist can prove
otherwise.
What does the MOQ say about "greater complexity" then?
5. The "CONTAINER PROBLEM" argument
> 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.
Bo:
No logic? Phew! There are none as blind as those who don't see.
Paul:
Perhaps you can demonstrate the logic of your "solution" next time?
6. The "STATIC CANNOT BE DYNAMIC, THEREFORE INTELLECT
CANNOT BE AESTHETIC" argument
> Paul:
> I think that static quality can be defined as patterned aesthetic,
> Dynamic Quality is therefore unpatterned aesthetic, and Quality is
> both.
Bo:
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.
Paul:
I agree that "Dynamic intellect" is a logical contradiction. However,
the MOQ nevertheless gives intellectual meaning to the RELATIONSHIP of
Dynamic Quality to static intellectual patterns.
"It seems to me that a keystone in a bridge between the Metaphysics of
Quality and Complementarity may be established if what has been called
the "unmeasured phenomenal object" is now called the "The Conceptually
Unknown" and what is called "Dynamic Quality" is also called "The
Conceptually Unknown." Then the two come together. I would guess that
the Conceptually Unknown is an unacceptable category in physics because
it is intellectually meaningless and physics is only concerned with what
is intellectually meaningful. That also might be why Bohr never
mentioned it. However I think that this avoidance of The Conceptually
Unknown should be revised. It is like saying that the number zero is
unacceptable to mathematics because there's nothing there. Mathematics
has done very well with the number "zero" despite that fact. The
Conceptually Unknown, it seems to me is a workable intellectual category
for the description of nature and it ought to be worked more." SODV
And on my use of the term "aesthetic":
"This aesthetic nature of the Conceptually Unknown is a point of
connection between the sciences and the arts. What relates science to
the arts is that science explores the Conceptually Unknown in order to
develop a theory that will cover measurable patterns emerging from the
unknown. The arts explore the Conceptually Unknown in other ways to
create patterns such as music, literature, painting, that reveal the
Dynamic Quality that produced them. This description, I think, is the
rational connection between science and the arts." SODV
Paul
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 - 12:46:49 BST