From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Jan 03 2004 - 16:37:12 GMT
Hi Bo
That's fine as long as you are saying
that the SOM pattern has been dominant
rather than exclusive. I see Descartes as
the greatest expression of SOM, and the
challenges have been coming in ever since.
Clearly, the value of intellect, the value of the individual,
the value of SOM have all been about a kind of flight
and challenge to the collective, hence a challenge
to myth, religion, conformity. Including political myths
about hiearchy, inequality, deference. Maybe also sexual myths.
When you think how briefly we have been trying to pick
up where the Greeks left off, we have probably hardly
made much of a start. I see science as being nihilistic in Nietzsche's
sense, i..e. full of the anxiety of having lost the security of the theistic
conception. That anxiety has been expressed in the quest for certainty
based on a reductionist search for substance. The failure of this project
may well be the most significant turning point for our culture.
I suspect Pirsig is not going to prove to be much of a breakthrough.
He may get more recognition after the turn has been made, it does not look
like Pirsig is going to have a really big impact. It is only really science
that
has the cultural status to have a big impact on popular consciousness I
suspect. I think he key term may turn out to be agency rather than quality.
I think science is starting to face up to some of the issues Pirsig raises
when it tries to tackle cosmic evolution, the openness of systems,
chaos, conscious systems, TOEs, nature of laws, etc. The only other
driver for change maybe the fallling down/away of capitalism, and the
return of politics and the need to make decisions about what is the
best life (but this may still be 100s of years away).
Currently people only think about values in terms of the sort
of private lives they want to lead, there is little consideration about
public
ends. I think Sam is right to question the manipulation of symbols
expression
because clearly the symbols have to be valued and connected to activity.
The use of symbols in an intellectual way clearly requires the DQ of the
subject
to be involved. When we say object we must be implying a pattern with SQ.
Therefore when we recognise the DQ are we therefore necessarily referring
to activity and therefore some form of subject? Of course, we can cut out
this
language and attempt to talk only about DQ/activity and SQ/repetition. Still
a good idea I think. For me intellectual level means activity that is
performed
using the power/value of intellectual SQ in an individual and
deliberate/conscious
manner. When you go down the levels you still get forms of intended and
deliberate activity but not at an individual level. I can't help thinking
that the
4th level is all about the capacity for individual activity (and intllectual
patterns
help make this possible).
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: MD intellectual level
> David M. and Discourse
>
> 31 Dec. you said:
>
> > -taken this over to the discuss area as I have gone
> > bit off the original subject:
>
> > I have no doubt that we are attacking the same
> > thing, I was only trying to check where you were
> > coming from and cover the idealist side. I am very
> > happy to switch to the SQ/DQ dualism rather than SO.
> > I am happy to talk about an intellectual level in as
> > far as this is full of static patterns, i.e various communicable
> > ideas/theories/etc and that has its associated value.
>
> That the static intellectual level contains intellectual patterns and
> that those patterns aught to be communicable and have value is
> obvious, but that intellectual value reside in their being "ideas/
> theories" is my eternal complaint.
>
> I believe that biological value is that of being alive, and that social
> patterns are just as easily defined by being beneficial for the
> individuals concerned. As easy discernible is the MOQ tenet of the
> upper level's "control" of the parent level regarding the lower levels,
> but for intellect neither the first nor the second trait can be found
> regarding the current definition(s).
>
> In his letter to Paul Turner, Pirsig managed to suspend it all in mid-
> air; on one hand the "manipulation of symbols" definition that
> sends intellect into the remote past and on the other speaking
> (correctly) about Ancient Greece as the its cradle. After this those
> who have had opinions have fallen silent (except me and my trusty
> critic Mark).
>
> > But it
> > is, of course, also on the move,
>
> Yes, but first some more preliminaries. From pre-historic times
> humans have constructed world-views - it's the human hallmark -
> but these we call myths because they were not based on
> OBJECTIVE KNOWLEDGE and this says it all. Intellect has its
> origin with the advent of the subject/object divide. All this is
> described in the ZMM passage starting with:
>
> "One must first get over the idea that the time span between
> the last caveman and the first Greek philosopher was short ..."
>
> ending with the conclusion ...
>
> "What is essential to understand at this point is that until now
> there was no such thing as mind and matter, subject and object,
> form and substance .."
>
> The S/O-intellect had no clean-cut start, Plato's Shadows/Ideas
> bears little resemblance to it, but already with Aristotle's
> Substance/Form we see its outline, but only with Descartes did it
> reach its apex. For your benefit the subjective half has also been
> explored and has proliferated into a host of "idealist" theories, but
> let's keep the general outline clear.
>
> > for example, the MOQ
> > as a theory has emerged. But also existentialism, Bergson,
> > Whitehead of course. These are intellectual achievements
> > but are not easily or completely associated with SOM.
> > Does this fall in with what you are saying?
>
> But before we know what VALUE characterizes intellect it is
> impossible to say what the MOQ is - a "good" intellectual pattern
> or a "rebel" one. We know what philosophers Pirsig refers to in his
> work and (your) Whitehead, Bergson, Heidegger are not among
> them. And if existentialism can be said to be a parallel or
> forerunner for the MOQ ...maybe?
>
> Sincerely
> Bo
>
>
>
> 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 Jan 03 2004 - 16:44:18 GMT