From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat May 01 2004 - 13:44:33 BST
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.
DM: This seems right to me, but happy to be persuaded otherwise if someone
can argue it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Buchanan" <DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 01, 2004 4:52 AM
Subject: RE: MD The Individual Level
> 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
>
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 - 13:51:09 BST