From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 18:16:19 GMT
Hi David M.
4 Jan. you spoke thus:
> DM: I do not see intellectual patterns before the S/O patterns, I mean
> challenging it, probably as soon as it arose, but a challenge that has yet
> to have any real threat of success.
The first line was promising, but the rest rather subtle. Could you
elaborate.
> DM: So what is the future for Pirsig's ideas?
I don't know if it is just me, but I seem to see quality-like inputs
popping up with increasing frequency. One example was that of an
AI theorist speaking about computers having to become "social"
before becoming aware (the intellect out of society tenet). So
pressure builds and some day ...but of course there is no smooth
transit but a question of suddenly seeing the Quality idea! Not all
has on this site either.
> Bo replies:No sarcasm, but intellect being the use of intellect is a truism
> and
> a "SQ" thrown in does not add much. All level's value are applying
> the power of that level. The only viable definition is the
> subject/object master-pattern.
> DM: No, what I mean is that intellectual achievement is laid down
> in usable patterns, like tools, these can be used to construct both
> more buildings or even more tools for more idea constructions.
Well, what characterize the intellectual patterns? What is the
"certain kind of thinking" you see with SOM below, because this is
identical to intellect's thinking. OK you opened by seeing intellect
as the S/O-thinking so you may have answered already.
> To be frank, I see SOM as pushing a certain kind of thinking to its
> furthest extreme, this has taked us from primitive participation to
> the greatest individualistic alienation, but I think that thinking can
> perhaps get dualistic thinking in context, a context that sees both
> Being and Nothing
Is this Sartre's "Čtre et Neant"?
> as limited terms and where free-Becoming is seen
> as the truly infinite-absolute-ground that has no other and no limitation.
> And in this context the SO divide will be understood and contextualised
> by some kind of grasp of Becoming or perhaps the MOQ. At the end of the
> day such a grasp would be a sort of cosmic narrative. I see Pirsig's levels
> as merely a first run at attempting to tell this story. From this point of
> view I am not really sure what your question is asking:
Sounds like the German idealism that gave philosophy its bad
reputation ;-).
> Bo:WHAT is the STATIC intellectual value?
> DM: Please elaborate, I am not sure that a level has to be conceptualised
> as having a single form of value.
I opened this our dialogue by pointing to the inorganic, biological
and social levels and how easily we recognize their patterns, so
why not intellect, it is after all a static level and thus easily
"conceptualized". "Having single form"? Regarding biological life
there is a single unbroken line from the amoeba to the mammal
organism. But again, you opened this post by "seeing no
intellectual patterns before the S/O patterns" so I guess it's settled.
My first ally ;-)
> By the way you will see that my novel is basically a fantasy that the
> physicist that cracks the theory of everything problem turns out to be an advocate of
> something resembling the MOQ, well that is my ideas before I ever read any
> Pirsig.
Yes, the novel. Please, I respect your copyright and accept all
conditions (can't guarantee the offence bit, but will not sue you;-)
so send it over.
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 : Tue Jan 06 2004 - 08:12:34 GMT