From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Jan 04 2004 - 15:22:34 GMT
DM and MD ;-)
On 3 Jan. David MOREY wrote:
> That's fine as long as you are saying
> that the SOM pattern has been dominant
> rather than exclusive.
You too my son Brutus? Why this comment? What was the
intellectual patterns before the S/O patterns?
> I see Descartes as
> the greatest expression of SOM, and the
> challenges have been coming in ever since.
No objections to this.
> 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.
Nor this.
> Including political myths
> about hiearchy, inequality, deference. Maybe also sexual myths.
Yes, the Fascist/Nazist movement were social values' last stand
according to Pirsig.
> 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.
Yes and yes again! The old order - social order - what Phaedrus of
ZAMM saw in the Greek Aretê and what is perpetuated through
myths and religious beliefs is bliss compared to the skepticism
that science is constructed on ...one way seen ....but what
hinders progress another way seen and MOQ's view is the second
with the caveat of not even intellect's S/O is THE TRUTH.
A scene from the earthquake in Iran says it all: The old woman dug
out speaks of her fate being God's will. This is the "social" value -
the "bliss" part - but skepticism about God - intellectual value -
would make them build safer houses which is an even better thing.
> 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.
Great insight!
> 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.
Look DM. The (scientific) S/O-inspired reductionist search (intellect
IMO) has gone on for a long time now and the chimera of
substance is left long ago. If you read scientific magazines these
days about particle physics it's completely weird and even worse
are those about cosmology ...the "multiverses" effort to reconcile
Quantum and Classical Physics for instance, but does it help?
Not the least. Physics is like the cartoon figure who has walked off
the precipice and not realized it. You make it sound as if the MOQ
will be understood after "he" has fallen down, but it is the other way
round: The MOQ is the downfall. See Pirsig can't be touched by a
poker by the establishment or they will fall. In its time I tried to
direct the attention of academical "philosophologists" in this
country to the MOQ, but they make a point of not undestanding but
drones on about Plato, Kant, Hume ...maybe Bergson too ...as if
nothing have happened.
> 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.
OK here we agree deeply, as the spearhead of the intellectual level
sience is where the real philosophy is Anyone who wants to be
taken serious - intellectually - must refer preferably to physics.
"Spearhead" I said but even ahead of the that is the famous
"cutting edge of reality" and it is here the MOQ still resides.
> 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.
OK, but do these deliberations bring us any clarity? Sam is right
about the "manipulation of symbol" definition, I agree, but then
WHAT is the STATIC intellectual value?
> For me intellectual level means activity that is performed using the
> power/value of intellectual SQ in an individual and
> deliberate/conscious manner.
No sarcasm, but intellect being the use of intellect is a truism and
a "SQ" thrown in does not add much. All level's value are applying
the power of that level. The only viable definition is the
subject/object master-pattern.
> When you go down the levels you still get forms of intended and
> deliberate activity but not at an individual level.
Naturally, you don't find intellectual value below the intellectual
level. But what you find is what is called "intelligence" ...and I'm
afraid this is the source of all misunderstandings about Q-
INTELLECT on this site. Even Pirsig seems to fall into that trap.
> I can't help thinking that the 4th level is all about the capacity for individual activity (and intllectual
> patterns help make this possible).
Did you notice the "Jaynes applied to the MOQ" thread? There we
discussed how the "individual" aspect of intellect had its origin".
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jan 04 2004 - 17:41:25 GMT