From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 04:52:20 BST
Steve said:
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.
dmb replies:
Biological organisms simply are not possible without atoms, molecules and
other inorganic patterns! How could it be otherwise? I can't imagine why you
don't see this simple idea, or what your alternative could possiblely mean.
I mean, I see the levels as types of values too, but that doesn't keep me
from seeing that each level contains all the lower ones.
Steve said:
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.
dmb says:
The myths, rituals and languages that developed as parts of the social level
are included in the intellect. Thinking, in the intellectual sense, comes
only AFTER these social level patterns have evolved and is a necessary part
of the intellect. We can't exclude social level patterns of values from the
intellect any more than we can exclude the brain or the atoms of which it is
made. All levels are included in the fourth. Think about it, Steve. How
could it be otherwise. Thoughts without language? No way.
Steve said:
So it is with Wilber's holon's. I don't see that in Pirsig's levels
which he says are discrete.
dmb says:
Wilber is certainly more detailed and elaborate on the topic, but we can see
it in Pirsig too. Think of the way he corrects Descartes, insisting that the
philosopher can think only because French culture exists. Or Pirsig's
insistence that SOM's mistaken notion that it was born without parents be
corrected. And even the idea that each level gives birth to the next higher
one suggests that they are intimately connected. None of this contradicts
the idea of discrete levels because each new level also brings something
brand new, something that transcends all that came before. This is the part
that is discrete, distinctly different and even at odds with all that came
before.
dmb had said:
The MOQ is an evolutionary metaphysics, so the levels ARE levels of
development.
Steve replied:
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.
dmb says:
You're putting words in my mouth and arguing with yourself. When have I ever
denied the existence of rocks and trees or morals? Never. In any case, there
is no contradiction between "personal" development and any other kind of
evolution. And in cases where we are talking about social and intellectual
evolution, its nearly impossible to exclude the personal. People are a
necessary part of the process on those levels and so developmental
psychology and evolutionary psychology have much to teach us in general and
so I think Wilber's work can shed lots of light on the MOQ. I really don't
feel the need to pick one or the other. They fit very nicely without
contradiction. If anyone knows of any reason to think otherwise, I'd like to
hear it.
Steve asked:
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?
dmb answers:
Actually, I thought DaveS's suggestion was good. Prominent is probably a
better word than "dominated". Even better, I like to think that each of us
has a center of gravity, a bell curve, that sits somewhere on a continuum.
Cultures and nations are like that too. Both are very complex creatures, but
we can detect where its at, so to speak. No, I don't mean that "people are
literally a social pattern". I can't even imagine what that is supposed to
mean, let alone believe it. And I should add that my confusion here has
nothing to do with a neo-praggies refusal to do metaphysics. Its much more
simple than than. I just don't understand what you're saying when you use
Pirsig key terms like levels, patterns and values. I'm not even sure what
you mean by the word "literal".
Steve said:
I see Pirisig's levels as describing what everything is, where you seem to
see them as describing what people value.
dmb says:
No, its just that "what people value" can NOT be excluded from "everything"
that is. And in the MOQ people ARE values. The only question is, what kind?
Does Lila have quality? There is no easy answer. She seems to have it and
not have it at the same time, and its really quality that has her. So it is
with all of us. What kind? What sort? What levels are most conspiciously in
charge of this person? Yes, this metaphysics is about everthing including
rocks and trees, but people are more evolved and more interesting than
stones and bushes. Don't you think?
Steve said:
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.
dmb says:
Again, you're putting words in my mouth and thereby entering a debate with
no one but yourself. This is the end of a reply to a question I posed and I
am no nearer to the answer than I was at the beginning. You've been
complaining about talking about people in terms of the levels of value for
as long as I can rememeber, but this objection never made sense to me. Still
doesn't.
Again, I can't even say I disagree. Not exactly. I wouldn't yet know exactly
what I was disagreeing with. Its not a postmodern pose and its not that I
think you have a bad idea. I don't see the idea at all. Would you care to
try again with a fresh approach? Don't worry about disputing things I've
said (or the things you made up and attribute to me). Just please
concentrate on making your own thoughts clear. (Maybe I can egg you on by
saying that you should do it just to prove to me that you can make your
thoughts clear, because I'm very skeptical at this point.)
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 : Sat May 01 2004 - 04:55:48 BST