Re: MD The final solution or new frustration.

From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 16:54:25 BST

  • Next message: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com: "Re: MD Intellectual level - New letter from Pirsig"

    Mark,

    > Platt:
    > Intellect (thinking) is the process of differentiation. It cannot be
    > prior to itself.

    > Mark: 29-09-03: But differentiation is not division.

    Division is one example of differentiation. To differentiate means to
    "mark or show a difference." Subject/Object marks a difference as does
    Dynamic/Static Quality. Both are symbolic differentiations created by
    intellect.

    Mark:
    > That may sound
    > picky, but the term division is heavily emphasised by Bo himself because
    > it smacks of S/O division, which is not inevitable for the intellect to
    > exist. Bo's SOLAQI does insist this.

    Platt:
    Intellect isn't dependent on the S/O division. It can differentiate in
    other ways, like the Gods/tribe of primitive peoples. The intellectual
    LEVEL, however, is characterized by the DOMINANCE of the value of the
    S/O division. The intellectual LEVEL didn't evolve from the social
    level until the S/O division grew to overwhelmingly dominate the social
    level's primitive gods/tribe division of experience. But that
    primitives used intellect (thinking) there's no doubt. They left behind
    plenty of evidence of their ability to symbolize.

    Mark:
    > Remember , we are talking about the
    > MoQ - values; the intellect is a differentiation of values.
    > And it is a
    > process as you say, but there is no direct connection made with DQ in
    > Bo's solution (Pirsig: "I don't know if they were more in touch with DQ,
    > but certainly they were less in touch with modern intellectual patterns
    > that declare those voices to be illegal.") and No mention of Art?
    > Intellectual differentiation is made in response to DQ, it is an
    > aesthetic - the mythos is an artistic creation. If Bo had said,
    > "Differentiation of value in response to DQ is fundamental to intellect"
    > then he would be agreeing with the MoQ.

    Platt:
    Intellect (thinking) is not a response to DQ. Thinking is the
    patterning of pure experience (Quality) into static symbolic forms.
    What responds to DQ is not intellect but a vague sense of something
    better. One's initial reaction to great art (or getting off a hot
    stove) isn't intellectual. It's immediate, involuntary, instinctive,
    intuitive, visceral, spontaneous. Thinking about experience is
    secondary. Thinking about thinking is even further removed from DQ.

    > Platt:
    > Intellect (thinking) responds to Quality in the sense that intellect
    > (thinking) differentiates experience. Quality and experience in the MOQ
    > are synonymous.
    >
    > Mark: 29-09-03: Yes indeed. But division is not the basis of intellect
    > then; Intellect is a differentiation of value in response to DQ. DQ is
    > found in relationships between SpQ.

    Platt
    DQ is found beyond all of thinking's static patterns. Only later does
    thinking try to make sense of it. When thinking tries to use its
    dominant S/O pattern in an attempt to make sense of DQ, it fails. It
    takes an understanding of the MOQ to begin to get an intellectual
    grasp of DQ. Even then, it's elusive.

    > Platt:
    > Quality or experience comes first, then differentiation by intellect
    > (thinking). Dividing or laying a grid over experience cannot occur
    > before the experience. Intellect (thinking) divides experience to
    > survive. You wouldn't last a week without thinking or somebody thinking
    > for you.
    >
    > Mark: 29-09-03: I feel you may agree that at the cutting edge of
    > experience divisions break down don't they?

    There are no divisions at the cutting edge of experience. Quality is
    wordless, thoughtless, patternless until thought divides it, cuts it,
    differentiates it so that thought (intellect) can function and achieve
    its purpose of allowing humans to live and prosper in an otherwise dog-
    eat-dog world. Without our capacity for thought, the lions would have
    had us all for lunch years ago so that neither you nor I would be here
    now having this (intellectual) conversation.

    Keep in mind that primitive intellect's division of gods/tribe that
    marks social level values worked for millions of years and is trying
    for comeback by the division of state/classes so attractive to the
    political left. (Pomos are trying to sell a differentiation of
    experience based on uncertainty/relativism/group validation.)
    Personally I'll stick to DQ/SQ and the indispensable value of the
    individual, the only pattern now capable of responding to DQ.

    Platt

    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 : Tue Sep 30 2003 - 16:53:22 BST