From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jan 09 2004 - 07:56:39 GMT
Steve and interested parties
4 Jan. you said:
> I wanted to give you another chance to reply to this in case it got
> lost around the holidays. By your posts since this one I > assume it
didn't convince.
I'm afraid your first entry (of this post) escaped me, and my response to
this one become belated.
> Ok, but first let me clarify that in my understanding of the MOQ,
> it is itself an intellectual pattern. That is to say that for me,
> intellect goes all the way down when we talk about the static
> levels.
Your opening statement of intellect "going all the way (one you share
with all "subjectivists" around here) can't be correct if the MOQ is
supposed to be something different from the SOM.
> Any talk of patterns
> relies on intellect to infer the pattern.
Yes if this condition is observed. Talk of patterns relies on the MOQ and
it is not an intellectual pattern, but the MOQ ...employs reason for its
own purpose without being subordinate to it (see my last "intellectual
level" post)
Your above makes everything intellect and it assumes the same role as
SOM's "mind". We often treat the SOM as an aggregate, but it really
has two irreconcilable components and it is the subjective (mind) part
which is the MOQ's worst enemy. Remember P's teacher colleagues in
ZMM: Quality must either be subjective or objective
.
Thus talk doesn't start with "talk about" but with with language and one
is deep into Bohr's "everything is suspended in language" ..which is
identical to "everything in our mind" ... and I I know of no way to counter
it from SOM's premises. SOM must be cleared away completely and
afterwards there are no SOM patterns to pick and chose from.
> When we talk about an inorganic
> pattern of value such as gravity, we are talking about an inference
> from experience--gravity as an idea--an intellectual pattern of
> value.
This is "my" S/O-intellect with a small adjustment, but first some
more criticism ;-)
> But there
> is another high quality intellectual pattern of value that says that
> "gravity" is a description of experience that exists outside
> thought--that if I weren't thinking about gravity, I'd still be
> experiencing it.
Regardless, both these "patterns" carry the S/O mark, in the first
example the experience/the idea, and in the second the
description/experience. Now, back to ZMM where the objective horn
was the easy one because the "mind only" argument is watertight from
SOM's premises.
> Yes, that's an SOM assumption, but it still seems like a good one to
make.
The S/O ....M assumption is no good, but the S/O is a magnificent tool,
> Within the broader context of the MOQ we can take out the old SOM
> intellectual patterns and give them another look and see which ones
> are still any good.
It's my opinion too, but the said rejection of the SOM is of outmost
importance. Pirsig says that the SOM will find a place inside the MOQ,
but it's only the S/O left. He places it in the known manner across the
static hierarchy (inorg+org=object ...etc) while you see some S/O
patterns place within intellect ...but I see the S/O dichotomy as intellect
ITSELF!
The pick and chose of SOM patterns is not possible, ALL intellectual
patterns are S/O at their core. For instance the phenomenon of apples
falling to the ground. This got its S/O quality (of a force working upon
matter) with the intellectual level. In a crude form with the strange
physics of the old Greeks to Newton's system which is still valid, but
notice that with Einstein the S/O-pattern is "shaken" ...General
Relativity is a beginning of the end of an era.
In the social era (the observation of apples falling was described to
some apple spirit seeking mother earth ...I guess
In my opinion
Bo
PS
Re. your request about the a digital LILA. I got its philosophical part on
a floppy disk from a friend (on the discussion). I could use the "find"
function of my write program to search for words, phrase .etc. and as it
had the chapter number spread evenly across the text it was easy to
locate the find. I still have the disk, but my new machine has no A-
station. The said person may be willing to send you a copy?
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 : Fri Jan 09 2004 - 07:58:12 GMT