From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Feb 01 2004 - 02:53:39 GMT
Bo and all:
Bo said:
Remember your own thesis about the mythological era as compatible with the
social level in the MOQ? From this it's clear that the reality that
followed (the myths) must be identical to the intellectual level, and as
this is described as SOM in ZMM!!!.
dmb says:
No need to shout. I understand what you mean, but don't think the analogy
works. For starters, there is a world of difference between "compatible" and
"identical". And even within the social level there were many stages of
mythological development. Hunter gatherers and agrarian societies, for
example, have a completely different sets of myths. Surely intellect can
evolve and go through stages as well? Exhibit A...
"Dialectic, which is the parent of logic, came itself from rhetoric.
Rhetoric is in turn the child of the myths and poetry of ancient Greece.
That is so historically, and that is so by any application of common
sense. The poetry and the myths are the response of a prehistoric people
to the universe around them made on the basis of Quality. It is Quality,
not dialectic, which is the generator of everything we know." [ZMMp.391]
Bo said:
The "detached" attitude has split and divided and sprouted the
weirdest offsprings up through the millennia. ...Every "solution"
reinforced the dichotomy. And the numbers of S/O "patterns" are
as great as that of social ones.
dmb says:
Here you're only re-asserting what I've already objected to. Maybe I need
more exclamation points? ;-) Instead of showing that the "detatched"
attitude of abstract intellectual inquiry is identical to SOM in all its
permutations, I think you've only identified the fact that Western
philosophy had tended to focus on the problems created by SOM, and most
specifically scientific materialism. Instead, it seems that such a detatched
attitude is quite necessary whatever form intellect takes. Its always been a
part of the political struggle, from the trial of Socrates to the Scopes
Monkey trial, social level values have always been in conflict with the
intellect. SOM only shares in this. And SOM is only one way to dice it...
"A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the first
division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is into subjects
and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of human experience is
supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The trouble is, it doesn't.
What he had seen is that there is a metaphysical box that sits above these
two boxes, Quality itself. And once he'd seen this he also saw a huge
number of ways in which Quality can be divided. Subjects and objects are
just one of the ways."
dmb said:
> The ability to
> manipulate abstract symbols need not lead to only a single conclusion.
> The same skills are used in the East and in the West by an increasing
> number of non-SOM thinkers like Pirsig.
Bo replied:
If so, every result of "symbol-manipulation" is an intellectual
pattern, not only a scientific theory but a religion, a myths of old
...anything, and the MOQ has lost all meaning.
dmb says;
Lost all meaning? I don't see how. And why should we suddenly loose the
ability to distinguish between science and myth? Really don't get you here.
dmb said:
> The intellect is versatile enough to hold any
> number of thought systems, alternative worldviews and constantly does
> so as it evolves. And she's just a baby. You ain't seen nothin yet.
Bo replied:
As I see it the S/O value must be retained ..and that is only done
by relegating it the role of of the intellectual level. Just a (silly)
example: If for instance Islam won the Western world it would (in
your terms) mean that "the versatile intellect evolved to a new
world-view" ...wouldn't it? An intellect that can contain every
possibly outlook would make a retreat to the social level look like
an intellectual expansion ...no?
dmb says:
Why must the S/O value be retained? What does that even mean? And why is
there only one way to do it? Again, I'm lost. But one thing is for sure, if
Islam won the West we couldn't rightly call it "an intellectual expansion".
Quite the opposite. I'd call it a regression, a de-evolution back to social
level values. And speaking in geo-political military terms, I'd say it was
quite a surprize. ;-)
dmb said:
> Right. Pirsig has not only denied that but also asserted that the
> intellectual level is larger than SOM. "There are many sets of
> intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have
> more quality than others . . ."
Bo replied:
I know that Pirsig has denied it. My admiration for Pirsig is great,
but ... We "elders" may know more about it than the master himself.
dmb says:
I can't relate to this attutude. In terms of the MOQ, I think Pirsig is the
foremost authority. Call me old fashioned.
Bo said:
It is the rejection of SOM which is the heart of the MOQ, the
static levels and their definitions aren't all that important, as long
as they are kept STATIC. The danger is the dynamic/chaotic
intellecters, but you are right, the SOL is an interpretation.
Besides, I don't think Pirsig objects to us exploring his ideas -
even in a critical sense - as long as it is from its own premises.
dmb says:
We agree that rejection of SOM is key, but I think a clear understanding of
the levels and what they refer to in the real world is probably the single
most important antidote to SOM's amorality. In rejecting SOM, we're not
supposed to abandon science or the data it produces, only things like the
nihilism inherent in materialism. Its just a matter of repairing the damage
done by "detatchment" gone too far. You know, born without parents and all
that.
Thanks.
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 Feb 01 2004 - 02:58:17 GMT