From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 13 2004 - 19:30:12 GMT
Bo
Yes, SOM dominates the intellectual level,
but perhaps the step up to the next level
has to appear at the summit of the given level.
So that some complex inorganic molecules
are vey close to organic life, and other
creatures have something approaching social
organisation (ant colonies). So at the overcoming
of SOM, MOQ appears as something new. However,
what may be unique to the intellectual level,
and I have sympathy with Sam's suggestions,
is that there is not a level above it. I am not sure of this,
rather I ask the question. Is there/can there be a level above the one
occupied by man/the individual/language/and intellect? Is the end
point where the cosmos comes to be aware of itself? In the
sort of fullness that embracing the Quality idea implies. Once
experience/quality has benn put back together. what next?
I quite fancy sitting around for a bit, a cup of tea anyone?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 7:58 AM
Subject: MD SOLAQI confirmed.
Dan and all interested parties (Platt mentioned).
I discovered that this post hadn't made it to the forum - at least
not in my box Anyway I resend it.
6 Jan. Dan wrote:
> > Platt is writing about your idea that SOM is the intellectual level of
> > the MOQ and the role SOM plays in the MOQ. Following this line of
> > reasoning, Platt writes: "...the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM
> > reasoning," to which Robert Pirsig replies:
Ahh! Now I see. Platt's "...the MOQ is a SOM document ...etc" may
sound a little provocative, but look what Pirsig says.
PIRSIG:
> > "It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social
> > structures such as courts and journals and learned societies to
> > make itself known.
" ....the way SOM reasoning employs social strutures"!!!!! See,
he treats SOM as representative of the value that followed social
value and emplys its value (in the known way). Nothing about any
"intellect" that the SOM is a pattern of. If intellectual value were
something else than SOM he would have spoken of this as
"employing social structures", but no, he goes straight to SOM.
This is most telling, where does my reasoning go wrong?
PIRSIG:
> > SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social
> > structures,
That SOM isn't subordinate to society goes without
saying, but here it is again: He treats SOM as representing the
intellectual evel
PIRSIG:
> > and the MOQ is not
> > subordinate to the SOM structures it employs.
Then he goes on to say that the MOQ has a similar relationship
to SOM (or intellect) See, that means that it is out of intellect ...in
the known way of employing SOM without being subordinate to it.
PIRSIG:
> > Remember that the central
> > reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else.
Of course, but that does not contradict anything of what I am
saying. Young Phaedrus reasoning started from SOM's premises.
IT WAS ITS SHORTCOMINGS THAT PROVOKED THE Q-
INSIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
PIRSIG:
> > It is understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of any
> > kind.
DQ it is understood by direct ...etc, but the MOQ now employs
reason for its own purpose without being subordinate to it.
PIRSIG:
> > Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as
> > saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning.
The Ten Commandments belong at the social level, thus when
he says that they are not based on SOM reasoning he says that
they aren't intellect-based. See, he uses SOM and intellect as if
they are identical. And about the MOQ being based on SOM
reasoning. Up above he actually says that the MOQ employs
SOM's reason the way SOM's reason employs social structures".
It points to the MOQ being "out of SOM" ...in other words beyond
intellect.
PIRSIG:
> > It doesn't tell us anything about the essence of the
> > Ten Commandments
> > and it doesn't tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ."
> > (Lila's Child, note #125)
It's in the light of the MOQ we see the Ten Commandment as
non-SOM, thus to see the MOQ as non-SOM it is necessary to
relegate it to the role of intellect - all of it - if the MOQ is just
another intellectual pattern it is of the same same nature as
SOM. At the other levels there is continuity from the lowest
pattern to the highest, why such a inconcistency at intellect?
> Dan:
> I think that's why he includes you in his
> next annotation that I quoted previously.
Yes, yes, obviously, but it seems like he affirms the
SOM=intellect idea in every sentence.
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 : Tue Jan 13 2004 - 20:13:51 GMT