From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Tue Sep 30 2003 - 19:24:29 BST
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. 30-09-03: Hello Platt, But there you go again: 'Both are symbolic
differentiation's created by intellect.' If Intellect is the process of
differentiation, then differentiation cannot be the intellect can it? Differentiation is
the static product of a Dynamic process. Bo's SOLAQI says that division IS
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. 30-09-03: I agree with: 'Intellect isn't dependent on the S/O
division.' I like your use of the term characterise here, and i agree with it as long
as we understand it does not have to be that way, and the West can learn from
the East: 'The intellectual LEVEL, however, is characterized by the DOMINANCE
of the value of the S/O division.'
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.
Mark. 30-09-03: Any Dynamic process is responding to DQ? And thinking IS a
dynamic process - a static repertoire of intellectual values responding to DQ.
It is the preselection of new static patterns based on harmony or Quality. I
think we agree more than appears so here, if i may be so presumptuous? The only
major difference is that i am sticking closely to the language of the MoQ and
using the term DQ and you the term Quality?
> 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.
Mark. 30-09-03: I see what you are saying. Elusive certainly is at the centre
of many discussions here! :)
> 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.
Mark. 30-09-03: Intellect differentiates. Fair enough. We say it
differentiates value in response to DQ?
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.)
Mark. 30-09-03: The thing i like about this is that you are using the MoQ to
enquire into everyday experience and to shed light on germane areas of life.
Something sadly lacking in the forum. Actually, something fearfully lacking i
would say. Good to see it and have the chance to think about it in the language
of the MoQ for a change.
Personally I'll stick to DQ/SQ and the indispensable value of the
individual, the only pattern now capable of responding to DQ.
Platt
Mark. 30-09-03: Not sure if i would commit myself to your view that
individuals are the only patterns responding to DQ? I would certainly have allot of
time for the view that individuals are responding in such a dynamic way as to
make social patterns look limp by comparison?
Mark
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 - 19:25:55 BST