From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 10:26:08 BST
David ... Scott mentioned .. and Group.
Forgive me but I always seem to stay one argument behind you all.
On 19 July DMB wrote:
> dmb had said:
> More specifically, I think its clear that non-SOM intellectual
> descriptions are entirely possible. In fact, the MOQ is one such
> example.
> Bo replied:
> "Non-SOM intellectual description"..must be the oxymoron of the
> century! And the notion that the MOQ is one intellectual pattern, SOM
> another!? Where does that leave SOM if/when the MOQ succeeds?
> dmb says:
> Its only oxymoronic if SOM and intellect are equated, which is exactly
> the assertion in dispute.
On that issue I agree.
> And what in the world makes you think that
> there can be only one intellectual pattern at a time? That's like
> saying there is only one society at the social level or one species at
> the biological level.
The examples you bring are not relevant at all. All levels are based on
ONE common overall value, but this is impossible to find for the
present Q-intellect.....and what the S/OL S/OL-ution S/OL-ves.. See
even language likes it ;-)
> That doesn't make any sense to me at all. And to
> address the last question I'll remind you that SOM exists within the
> MOQ already. They already both exist as sets of intellectual patterns
> and do so at the same time.
Impossible. See below !
> I don't see why this would be a problem
> anymore than chimps and gorrillas can exist at the same time - and
> both be biological level creatures.
Chimps and Gorillas are both biological patterns, but Subject/Object
Metaphysics and Quality Metaphysics are incompatible - like oil and
water. Pirsig says the S/O divide exist inside the MOQ in his known
manner, but not BESIDE it as a metaphysics!!! It's the strange way
you define a metaphysics - as if just another stray thought - that
grates my Quality nerve. It claims to be the way reality IS!
I know your answer "The MOQ the better one" ...which is correct, but
the value increments are BETWEEN the levels not inside them. (Stop,
hold your fire!) Take biology for example. A mammal is a more
complex organism than a reptile, but when it comes to biological
survival the latter is best. The "lower" patterns are most genuine
biology, but the said value spawned biological growth until complexity
was so great that one of its uppermost patterns took off ...on what
became social purpose. And this goes for all levels.
> Bo asked:
> Why is it that you and Scott, so clear on the issue of intellect out
> of the Greek experience, retreat and speak of SOM as just one pattern
> of some more fundamental intellect ...of which the MOQ is another?
> dmb says:
> Same answer. Why not? Why do you imagine that only one metaphysical
> view can exist at any given time?
Metaphysics in this SOM/MOQ sense can certainly NOT co-exist. The
S/O must find some natural place inside the MOQ - Pirsig has
suggested one way - while I have another one that fits the Quality Idea
better (in my view goes without saying). The "primitive" Greek search
for permanence greater than the Myths, evolved through the millennia
to the stage when an intellctual-analytical wizard - Phaedrus - believed
he had constructed the loftiest S/O pattern possible, but its
complexity made it lose touch with S/O reality and went off on a
purpose of its own. Phaedrus thought he had lost his reason, but only
the subject/object one.
> I hope and pray that an even greater
> variety of such visions becomes available for our inspection.
But our task is now to stabilize the MOQ vision!
> I think
> you've got a real Henry Ford sense of variety going here; "You can
> have any color you want as long as its black."
You are right, one CAN have any pattern as long as it is static, but the
"thought-intellect" has no static character. The reason is of course that
"thinking" is a facet of the dynamics called DQ. Saying that the MOQ
is an integrated part of one of the its own STATIC levels violates two
principles: what is the dynamic is not static, and that of a smaller
container incapable of containing a bigger.
My "Portnoy's Complaints": While I was away you and Scott "held the
fort" regarding a sound intellect, but upon returning both of you make
a point of disagreeing. Part of the discussion rules I guess. Yet, give it
another try.
Sincerely
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 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 10:33:11 BST