From: Allen Barrows (allen_barrows@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 13 2005 - 03:52:37 BST
Hi Allen
It isn't easy to avoid such things, but it goes for all levels. It
sounds as a value "something" creates the patterns, while it it
really is one and the same.
Hello Bo, I find myself wishing to ask you how can you get division from a monism.
Intellect is supposed to be part of the static realm of MOQ's
overall Dynamic/Static system and by no twist of logic can it (the
MOQ) be seen as a sub-set of its own
The MOQ is a sq pattern which was made by a Dynamic process of symbolic
manipulation.
The MOQ is included at the intellectual level and is not a subset of itself because the
other levels are experienced and simply accounted for at the top level
with a symbol.
> I think this is why people reckon the MOQ is
> idealism,
Yes! That's my opinion too, but Pirsig has repeatedly denied
idealism as having any special affinity for the MOQ.
It is not my position even though i understand other people misunderstand. The answer
is simple when you put experience first then experience is the basis of
your metaphysics but idealists place ideas first and move out from that. As i just said,
experience includes other patterns other than the intellectual in the
MOQ but the intellect can still designate a symbol for them.
The MOQ clearly states that experience is first and it is then a mistake to equate this
with idealism.
The MOQ indicates many experiences which are not patterns of intellect and one very
important area is social patterns. Both idealists and materialists have huge
problems describing what they are but the MOQ deals with them and it does so by
begining with experience and not ideas.
> because even when it says there are social and organic and
> inorganic values all these are suggestions being made by the
> intellect.
This is intellect peering down at the lower levels imposing its own
S/O value upon them, seeing everything as intellectual
suggestions about a something "out there". Let's not be fooled by
it.
This is far too rapid for me bo. I must repeat i have not suggested that everything is
intellectual i have said and Lila says too that experience is first. If
we chart how this much later process happens we can see it has been taught to us by
our parents which is to say our biological and social experience. The
intellect is free to wander anywhere it likes and that is to say values and it does not
value in here or out there it is not peering down it is soring up
towards the sky. The sky is boundless and free and open and the rules for this flight are
as follows:
The block at the top [of the above MOQ diagram] contains such static
intellectual patterns as theology, science, philosophy, mathematics. The
placement of the intellect in this position makes it superior to society, biology
and inorganic patterns but still inferior to Dynamic Quality. (Pirsig, 1995a,
p.14)
Intellectual values include truth, justice, freedom, democracy and trial by jury.
Both the subject-object metaphysics and the MOQ are patterns lying entirely
within the intellectual level of evolution. Other patterns in the same level are
Euclidian and Riemann geometry, the branches of scientific knowledge, and the
written laws. (Pirsig, 1998b)
> People then can not figure out why everything is just
> intellect.
"People" of this group seems just too willing. ;-)
I have not detected this willingness Bo. It is certainly not argued for in Anthony McWatts
book for example. In fact his book argues well against such a
misunderstanding it seems to me. I would ask anyone who says the MOQ is idealism to
read his book.
> Social organic and inorganic patterns do not call
> themselves anything the only thing that can represent them and not be
> them are intellectual patterns. As Anthony McWatts book says
Your'e right organic and inorganic levels were from before
language (maybe the social level too for the most part) but this
doesn't mean that they only exist in "language". You see, by now
you have made language all there is, which is the subjective half
of SOM.
Again i must stop and catch my breath you move too rapidly Bo. I must gently take your
arm and beg you to rest a moment. Where have i said that language is all
there is. Quite the opposite in fact i have said experience is first. Please do not skip past
this most important point.
This transferred to the MOQ makes its intellectual level SOM's
subjective half, but this I vehemently protest, intellectual value is
a very special outlook that distinguishes between what is
objective and what is subjective.
You say MOQ intellectual level is SOMs subjective half because of SODV i think. SODV
says both social and intellectual sq patterns may be considered subjective
and not the intellect by its self. Please read SODV again and check for yourself if what i
say is wrong bo.
You disagree and say intellectual level is a distinguishing outlook and by that i take it
you mean value because being able to distinguish is a value judgement.
So what is doing the judgeing? What has this outlook? Quality monism? Is not outlook a
visual metaphor with SOM undertones? If you mean quality then you have
defined quality with a dualism. Saying something is special does not add anything to
your argument Bo.
> Intellectuality
> occurs when these customs as well as biological and inorganic
patterns
> are designated with a sign that stands for them and these signs are
> manipulated independently of the patterns they stand for. ‘Intellect’
> can then be defined very loosely as the level of independently
> manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and mathematics can be described as
> the rules of this sign manipulation.
> As you can see symbols can simply float away from what they point to.
The above is Pirsig from Lila's Child, a definition aimed at
repairing the "intellect=thinking" sidetrack that he admitted to in
the PT letter.
There words 'intellect is the same thing as thinking' do not appear in the quote you have
here. I read it again and still they are not here. You are adding your
own words after those in the quote. I simply can not see the words intellect equals
thinking in this quote at all.
Thinking can be social so you use the word thinking bad here. The key is that what is
being said here is independant from what (custom) symbols stand for. Now
that is exactly what i say in my little social traffic light story a story you have not brought
into this post even though i tried hard to invent it exactly so
you could see the independance we find in your quote. In other words your quote
supports my story and not intellect equals thinking.
But this definition is merely one of language
(concepts manipulated by rules of syntax and grammar)
something I see as the social pattern that became intellects
"vehicle".
Language is both social and intellectual depending on the independance of the symbols
from what they customary stand for and this is stated very clearly in the
quote. So to dismiss it as merely language is crude. I am not pleased with your vehicle
metaphor because the word vehicle imlies containment when the word
independant conveys freedom. New behaviour is not carried by its componants it is a
new mode of relationships between componants.
But you have some more to say:
> Some might say this is a difference between objective appearence and
> subjective thought but it does not have to be at all it seems to me
> because grammer can manipulate symbols independantly of whether any
> objects or subjects are percieved.
OK I see and agree, but the thing is that my favorite people of old
(social reality in the MOQ) used language without caring about
any such difference. Language was part of that malleable magic
reality where rituals (chanting f.ex) could change it. Social
existence has its present day reminiscence in religions and
prayers
The intellectual LEVEL occurred when the difference (between
what is symbolized and the symbol was "discovered" (just one
aspect of it)
Not according to the MOQ and my traffic light simile. The intellectual level occures with
symbols being manipulated independently from what they stood for. What
i have is symbol and manipulation. What you have is symbol and another symbol.
But dear Allen if you admitted to my "intellect the
S/O prism", all the rest is a bit inconsequential Don't you see
that?
Bo
No i do not see.
I wish there was an argument for what you are saying but i can not find one yet.
Thank you
Allen
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 Jun 13 2005 - 21:14:29 BST