From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Mon Sep 15 2003 - 11:10:38 BST
Bo
[Bo quoted Paul:]
> > The point of the DQ/SQ distinction is that "mind" [static
> > intellectual patterns] and "nature" [static inorganic-biological
> > patterns] arise from something which is neither mind nor nature
> > [Dynamic Quality].
[Bo:]
"Mind" (or the subjective realm of SOM) is covered by both the social
and intellectual levels. (Not that I like it ... as Jonathan says ;-)
[Paul:]
In the MOQ, "subjective" is social-intellectual patterns. Mind is
intellectual patterns. Pirsig is talking about subject-object
metaphysics equating subjective with mind, not the MOQ:
"A conventional subject-object metaphysics uses the same four static
patterns as the Metaphysics of Quality, dividing them into two groups of
two: inorganic-biological patterns called "matter" and
social-intellectual patterns called "mind". But this division is the
source of the problem." [Lila p.177]
He equates mind, thoughts and ideas with intellectual patterns several
times:
"The mind-matter paradoxes seem to exist because the connecting links
between these two levels of value patterns have been disregarded. Two
terms are missing: biology and society." [Lila p.179]
"What makes killing him immoral is that a criminal is not just a
biological organism. He is not even just a defective unit of society.
Whenever you kill a human being you are killing a source of thought too.
A human being is a collection of ideas and these ideas take moral
precedence over a society." [Lila p.185]
And in response to people getting the MOQ all wrong, he finally gives
the definition he didn't think he would have to give:
"In Lila, I never defined the intellectual level of the MOQ, since
everyone who is up to reading Lila already knows what "intellectual"
means. 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."
[Lila's Child p.64]
[Bo quoted Paul:]
> > So although in a Dynamic understanding they are
> > the same [undifferentiated], in a static sense they are different
> > patterns. As such, as no static differentiation carries over into
> > Dynamic Quality, I think that seeing thinking, or "subject" [static
> > intellectual patterns] as synonymous with Dynamic Quality defeats
> > the purpose of the division.
[Bo starts:]
Of course Scott is right, "thinking" (whatever that is) has nothing to
do
with the intellectual level..
[Paul:]
It does in the MOQ..
"Intellect is simply thinking, and one can think without involving the
subject-object relationship." [Lila's Child p.289]
[Bo continues:]
..rather is another name for all those aspects
of existence that can't be caught in any static mesh. You Paul who is
so keen on pointing to the nameless "continuum" should be the first
to admit that DQ has countless names to it.
[Paul:]
And thinking isn't one of them. What I am "so keen on pointing out" is
that
"Whenever one talks about Dynamic Quality someone else can take whatever
is said and make a static pattern out of it and then dialectically
oppose that pattern. The best answer to the question, "What is Dynamic
Quality?" is the ancient Vedic one - "not this, not that." [Lila's Child
p.565]
In terms of your "argument", you're up to your old tricks..
"thinking" (whatever that is) has nothing to do with the intellectual
level.."
..you refer to your interpretation of Pirsig as if it is what he
secretly intended. I have no problem whatsoever with discussing
interpretations, modifications, even pragmatist strong misreadings as
long as we are clear on where we have knowingly changed the meaning of
Pirsig's [or anyone else's] terms to suit our proposal. For example,
your argument above could read:
"It would be better if "thinking" was not the definition of the
intellectual level because..."
or
"In my SOLAQI interpretation of the MOQ, "thinking" has nothing to do
with the intellectual level.."
or even
"I think Pirsig meant to say that "thinking" has nothing to do with the
intellectual level which is consistent with the following statements..."
instead of..
"..despite having no support from the author's publications, several
refutations and statements to the contrary, I have a strong feeling that
what he actually wanted to say (if he was allowed to finish his TRUE MOQ
which none of you can see because you are all hypnotised by the evil
SOM) was that "thinking" has nothing to do with the intellectual
level.."
..which is what your argument amounts to.
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 : Mon Sep 15 2003 - 13:15:32 BST