From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Feb 01 2004 - 08:42:22 GMT
Steve and Group
30 Jan. you wrote:
> Questions:
> How is ZAMM's Quality as pre-intellectual awareness related to Lila's
> Dynamic Quality leaving static patterns in its wake?
A terribly interesting post this Steve. You probably know my
opinion, but the so-called Quality Event of ZMM becomes the
"transformation" at the intellectual level. Yet, as described it is
the level's own perspective (a subject becoming aware of
objects)*, but it is the Q-perspective we should heed: THE
VALUE OF THE S/O DISTINCTION.
*) Phaedrus was at that time in a limbo position, halfway between
SOM and MOQ
> Are they the same? Is Pirsig using the term "intellectual" in the
> same sense as he does when he discusses intellectual patterns?
Guaranteed!
> Perhaps "unpatterned awareness" would make a good substitute for
> "pre-intellectual awareness," otherwise it would seem that all
> patterns are intellectual by equating dynamic/static with
> pre-intellectual/intellectual. What do you think?
Let not the "awareness" term bug you, that's intellect's own S/O
jargon and yes, intellect just loves to present it like everything is
intellectual - in mind - but this way of "thinking" somish while
using moqish terms create a mess. Viewing intellect as SOM and
that MOQ is a view beyond puts everything in order.
> Recently I said, "To infer patterns of any kind, one must rise to the
> intellectual level since inferences are intellectual constructs."
> Platt agreed, DM disagreed. I think the disagreement concerned an
> implication that all patterns are intellectual. My use of "inference"
> implies symbolic representation of patterns so I stand by my original
> statement.
The ability to infer - to draw conclusion - has nothing to do with
MOQ's intellect. People of old "inferred" a lot from the data they
observed: Stars were goddesses and thunder was the god Tor
banging his hammer (in the Norse myth) and such. To infer is
merely "to reason" (verb) but the intellectual level is the noun
REASON which is to distinguish what's objective from what's
subjective.
> I've been working with the definition of "pattern" as "perceptual
> structure" where structure could refer to inorganic, biological,
> social, or intellectual structure.
Well, patterns of value is something you perceive from the Q-
level, intellect does not perceive value in this sense. I'm afraid
yours is the MIND-intellect where everything is perceived.
> Does anyone have a better definition of "pattern"?
Your "perceptual structure" isn't bad, but does it add anything?
> One problem I see
> with "perceptual structure" as an MOQ definition is that it implies an
> S/O relationship of a perceiver and that which is perceived. Is
> pattern an inherently S/O term?
Yes, but is it a problem? Look at it this way. After the inorganic
level its value patterns are at the bottom of everything, after
biology these patterns became part of reality and after society
nothing can be conceived that doesn't have a social base. Now,
after intellect we conceive everythings in its S/O terms .....but it is
the MOQ which is now the top notch and exploits all these values
- intellect included - for its own purpose.
IMO
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 Feb 01 2004 - 08:56:09 GMT