From: Steve Peterson (peterson.steve@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Apr 26 2004 - 16:37:46 BST
Hi DMB,
On Apr 25, 2004, at 2:39 PM, David Buchanan wrote:
> Steve asked:
> How can they the intellectual level be at war with the social level if
> it
> includes it?
>
> dmb replies:
> Think of the way biological organisms must fight against inorganic
> forces
> even while they include them. The atoms in their muscles are used to
> resist
> gravity, for example.
But do muscles include gravity? The fact that any talk about muscles
presupposes gravity supports the fact that the biological level is
built upon the inorganic level. I don't see how it makes sense to say
that the biological level literally *includes* the inorganic level, but
then, I see the levels as types of patterns of value.
> Think of the way social codes conflict with biological
> impulses. Both are included in the whole person and yet they are at
> odds.
Both are included in the whole person since a person is a forest of
static patterns, but I don't see how the social level is included in
the intellectual level which I understand as including only patterns of
thought.
> The point is that all
> levels include and transcend the ones below.
So it is with Wilber's holon's. I don't see that in Pirsig's levels
which he says are discrete.
> Steve said:
> I agree, so long as you don't *equate* the MOQ types of static patterns
> with levels of development. I have no problem with the "idea of
> talking about people in terms of the level of values that dominate
> them." My problem is with defining the levels in terms of types of
> people, i.e. the individual level, rather than understanding people in
> terms of types of patterns of value. I tend to bring it up whenever we
> come to a disagreement in this discussion group where I think clarity
> can be gained by making that distinction.
>
> dmb replies:
> Don't equate MOQ static patterns as levels of development?! What!? The
> MOQ
> is an evolutionary metaphysics, so the levels ARE levels of
> development.
They are levels of development as an evolutionary hierarchy of types of
patterns of value. They are not primarily levels of personal
development. They can be used to inform us about personal development,
but that is not what they are.
If you follow Wilber rather than Pirsig, which you seem to, you will
see these levels as levels of development in the evolution of the mind
rather than in the far broader terms that Pirsig is talking about with
morals as real as rocks and trees in an evolutionary metaphysics that
includes rocks, trees, and minds and explains them all in terms of
patterns of value rather than subjects and objects.
> Steve said:
> By the way, when you say so and so is "on the ____ level," do you mean
> it like Platt that the person is dominated by that level rather than
> literally that type of pattern of value?
>
> dmb replies:
> Rather that literally that type of pattern?
> I honestly don't know what you
> mean?
I'm asking whether when you say a person is, for example, on the social
level, are you saying that the person is literally a social pattern of
value? Or like Platt, are you saying that the person is dominated by
social value patterns?
Your "I honestly don't know what you mean?" reminds me of your defense
to Matt's complaints about metaphysics. It seems that you were in fact
being sincere, you really don't play metaphysics. I see Pirisig's
levels as describing what everything is, where you seem to see them as
describing what people value.
> Oddly, I can see that its related to the distinction that I don't see.
> And I can see that you're asking about the phase, "on the x level", but
> beyond that I'm lost. Let me just say that I think each person exhibits
> their values in ways we can detect and that, roughly, we can make a
> call
> about what makes a person tick. Its not any more complicated than that.
I don't see the MOQ levels as representing people's values but rather
describing all reality in terms of types of patterns of value and DQ.
Values are what *everything literally is* according to Pirsig's MOQ,
not merely what makes a given person tick.
Regards,
Steve
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 : Mon Apr 26 2004 - 17:17:57 BST