From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Sep 03 2003 - 17:09:22 BST
Hi Bo,
> Scott originally:
> > > > This is why I say that the S/O divide should be seen as a case of
> > > > the DQ/SQ divide. It's too ingrained in us to be called a *static*
> > > > pattern of value.
>
> Platt commented:
> > > How "ingrained" something is has no effect on its being a static
> > > pattern. The laws of physics are pretty well ingrained yet still
> > > static patterns of the inorganic level. But, the S/O divide, if we
> > > agree it is a static social pattern, can be said to be seen as "a
> > > case of the DQ/sq divide, or perhaps less abstractly, a case
> > > (pattern) in the MOQ moral hierarchy.
> The S/O divide - its emergence and growth - is described in ZMM and even
> if you don't accept the SOL (that the S/O is intellect itself) you at
> least see the SOM as an (one) intellectual pattern ..don't you? So why
> suddenly social?
I distinguish between S/O as an intrinsic division and SOM as a
metaphysics. S/O as a division began long ago in evolutionary history,
at least back to the cave man who could distinguish hunger from food.
And now I'm beginning to think it goes all the way back to the
biological era when an amoeba knows "It's better here," and "Not so
good here." I realize that any division is intellectual as is any
description of any kind whatsoever. But, just as the "biological level"
points to a pre-intellectual level, S/O can point to a split that
occurred prior to the rise of and eventual dominance of SOM.
> Jonathan says:
> > I dissent on both counts:
> > 1. "Ingrained" and "static" are synonyms, both meaning resistant to
> > change. 2. I don't see the S/O divide as a social pattern. It is an
> > (intellectual) description of perception AT ALL LEVELS.
>
> I agree about the ingrained part and also (with qualifications) about
> S/O as "...an intellectual description of perception at all levels".
> Intellect has the privilege of "describing" the rest of existence, but I
> wonder what other "intellectual descriptions ...etc". are like? Just one
> example please.
I don't understand you question. Everything you and I say and write are
intellectual descriptions of our experiences. What else could they be?
> > IMHO, what Pirsig has done is to LIBERATE the S/O divide from a
> > metaphysical straightjacket.
>
> Agree!
Agree. But the S/O divide hasn't been tossed out. It's still part and
parcel of the MOQ.
> > According to my understanding of the
> > quality idea, the S/O division is no longer a fixed, absolute
> > dichotomy that defines the bounds of reality; it is a
> > dynamically-assigned division that can help describe experience.
>
> The S/O divide a "dynamically-assigned division". Well, weren't all
> quality levels once dynamically assigned? And "..help describe
> experience" ...of course, intellect offers the best description of
> experience ...until the MOQ that is.
You keep suggestion that the MOQ isn't an intellectual pattern. What is
it then, an attitude? As I've asked others, how do you see the world
differently as a result of putting on MOQ spectacles? Besides a new
take on evolution, what other specific reversals in your outlook or
behavior has occurred in your everyday life as the result of reading
and taking to heart ZMM and Lila?
Best regards,
Platt
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 : Wed Sep 03 2003 - 17:07:57 BST