From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Wed Dec 03 2003 - 17:18:59 GMT
Hi Bo
> Paul prev:
> What would that level be called? Static patterns of Quality quality?
> Quality patterns of value?
Bo said:
Steve asked me the same question a while ago and my response is
notorious vague because I haven't found a satisfactory formulation.
Paul:
You used the following argument in another thread to demonstrate your
problem with "Dynamic" intelligence being equivalent with static
intellect:
"If one (as a thought experiment) picked - say - intelligence as the new
"groundstuff" it might be instrumental to our understanding of the MOQ
because when one arrives at the "static intellectual intelligence" level
one would see that STATIC intelligence had to be different from both
"thinking" and "abstraction" (symbols) because these ARE intelligence by
definition."
But your fifth level has exactly the same consequences. You end up with
static quality quality, or in your jargon, Q-quality. The (static)
quality level you are postulating has to be different to the (Dynamic)
quality that Pirsig is referring to as "groundstuff" and so would be
called static quality (which is of course the description applicable to
all levels) and your metaphysics would be thoroughly confusing whilst
adding nothing to our understanding.
In addition, your new level would still have to contain itself in its
own framework and so it suffers exactly the same "problem" you see with
intellect.
Bo said:
You call such a 5th level's patterns "quality quality", but I stick to
the "rebel" concept.
Paul:
I don't call it anything because I don't postulate a fifth level. Your
"rebel" concept is a fudge to try and avoid the inevitable consequences
described above.
Bo said:
The notion that the MOQ can be explained by intellect's logic is the
"weak interpretation" while the one that it is a "level" beyond
intellect with its own logic is the "strong interpretation".
Paul:
You use "intellect's logic" to mean "Aristotelian logic" or "SOM logic"
which is your own limited definition of intellect, not Pirsig's. The
"level beyond intellect" is direct experience, Buddhist "awareness,"
Dynamic Quality. As such, it is not a static level of any description.
Bo said:
All efforts to explain the MOQ from SOM's premises (intellect's) leads
to something resembling the Schrødinger Cat paradox. Best demonstrated
by the LC annotation that we discussed in the "What comes first"
thread).
Paul:
I don't see the analogy. Can you explain the similarities?
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 : Wed Dec 03 2003 - 17:20:14 GMT