From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Oct 04 2003 - 18:44:19 BST
Scott
I think your suggestion that we need to see intelligence
as inseparable from Quality, if Quality is going to be
any good for undersanding this cosmos is the right one.
For me, the anthropic principle, the obvious achievement
of this cosmos, demonstrates that the dynamic aspect of this
cosmos must also imply some ability to choose wisely when
making dynamic thrusts into the future. I think what is essential
to intelligence, is asssociatable with the cosmos as well as with
humans, and is suggested in quantuim theory, is the existence prior
to dynamic quality (or defining dynamic quality even) of a number of
possible futures (hence many worlds theory as an alternative means used
to avoid the reality of cosmic intelligence) intelligence would be the
choice
of one valuable/useful future over those that do not look like a good idea.
E.G. I decide to take job A rather than job B because it offers more
holidays
and that's what I value. When you do this you rule out a whole set of
possible futures you
could of had. On a cosmic level I think something like this has to happen,
when every wave
function collapses from the possible to the finite event of the now. The
cosmos is a sort
of continuing collapse of the possible into the finite/actual of the one
particular of this our
cosmos.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott R" <jse885@spinn.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2003 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: MD MOQ and idealism
> Paul,
>
> > [Scott:]
> > > "The MOQ says that Quality comes first, which produces ideas, which
> > > produce what we know as matter.
> >
> > How can Quality produce ideas if it is not Intellect?
> >
> > [Paul:]
> > Quality produces ideas; intellect is the manipulation of those ideas.
>
> Our intellect manipulates those ideas and creates new ones. In the latter
> case is where we are connected to Intellect, as for example in Poincare's
> mathematical insights. (Many of our "creations" are not of this sort --
the
> difference being what Coleridge refers to in his fancy/Imagination
> distinction.). To restrict intellect to the manipulation of existing ideas
> is first unintelligible, since through manipulation one can create new
> ideas, and second reveals Pirsig's nominalist prejudice. The ancinet
> philosophers had no problem conceiving (and in some cases, like Plotinus,
of
> experiencing) the Divine Intellect. Though it would fit in so well with
the
> rest of the MOQ, Pirsig prefers to impoverish the concept of intellect by
> assigning it solely to SQ.
>
> In any case, your reply doesn't answer my question. That which produces
> ideas has to be more than just Good. In conventional language our words
for
> it are "intellect", "reason", and "thinking". Not "value", "quality" or
> "good".
>
> > [Paul:]
> > Firstly, he says value is the preselection of what becomes consciousness
> > before it is possible to be thought about. It is not an "observation of
> > value", it is value that is observation. Observation creates the
> > "observer" and the "observed".
>
> I agree with this. But in the case of ideas, one has Thinking, creating
the
> thinker and the thought. Ultimately they are the same (since I hypothesize
> only one Ultimate.) But this is why Pirsig's treatment of "subject" and
> "object" is a disaster. For Observation really and truly creates the
> observer and the observed, and they are qualitatively different. They are
> not both SQ, since SQ is observable, but the observer as observer is not.
> Instead they exist in mutual contradiction. The same goes for thinker and
> thought. All experience has this irreducible tripartite form.
>
> > Secondly, he spent a whole book demonstrating that Quality is
> > "recognised" without intellect. This also applies to recognising Quality
> > that produced intellectual patterns. Remember his teaching experiment
> > "what is quality in thought and statement?" in Bozeman?
>
> He simply assumed it in the beginning. The brujo story produced the idea
of
> the initial split into DQ and SQ. So far so good. But in the next
paragraph
> is:
>
> "When A. N. Whitehead wrote that "mankind is driven forward by dim
> apprehensions of things too obscure for existing language", he was writing
> about Dynamic Quality. Dynamic Quality is the pre-intellectual cutting
edge
> of reality, the source of all things, the completely simple and always
new."
>
> My question is where did the "pre-intellectual" come from? It appears to
be
> related to the phrase "too obscure for existing language." But to have a
dim
> apprehension of something that escapes existing language means that one is
> thinking dynamically. One has an intimation from Intellect. One has a
> non-verbalized idea and one will either change the language to verbalize
it
> or come to the conclusion that it is beyond all language. So why does he
> call this "pre-intellectual"? In my view because of a nominalist
prejudice:
> he is convinced that all language and thinking is "flatus voci", all SQ,
> always merely tacked on to a really real non-linguistic, non-thinking,
> pre-existing universe of things and events. This makes the MOQ nothing
more
> than materialism plus God.
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Sat Oct 04 2003 - 19:02:38 BST