From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jan 28 2004 - 08:18:01 GMT
Hi David M. Buchanan.
25 Jan. you wrote:
> Matt said:
> Plants and animals are both biological, but most people wouldn't claim
> that just because plants/animals evolved first doesn't mean that all
> animals/plants are plants/animals.
> dmb says:
> I've been looking for a good place to jump in ever since Bo started
> "courting" me and I guess this is as good a spot as any. The variety
> of life forms that exist on the biological level is immense. The
> number of cultures, languages and social structures is also pretty
> large.
About the multitude of biological and social patterns I agree
...not to speak of the inorganic.
> I fail to understand how we can conclude that the intellectual
> level is identical to a single world view or metaphysical system.
Remember your own thesis about the mythological era (from the
Campbell view) as compatible with the social level (before
intellect) in the MOQ? From this it's clear that the reality that
followed (the myths) must be identical to the intellectual level,
and as this is described as SOM in ZMM!!!. About it as a "single
world view" see later.
> In
> fact, the assertion that SOM=intellect defies my own experience as a
> thinking creature. Sure, we're talking about scientific materialism,
> its conventional wisdom in the educated West at this point in history,
> but I think the ancients only planted the seeds for this flower.
SOM (as it first appears with the Greeks) compares to scientific
materialism as an amoeba to a mammal organism, one can't see
any clear connection other than both being organism.
> And
> yes, even at the birth of intellect there was a certain way of
> detacted analyisis, but I think its a mistake to equate abstract
> inquiry itself as a nesessary feature of SOM.
The "detached" attitude has split and divided and sprouted the
weirdest offsprings up through the millennia. Many are/were
subjective (idealist) and other objective (materialist), yet whether
S or O they carried the other as a shadow. Every "solution"
reinforced the dichotomy. And the numbers of S/O "patterns" are
as great as that of social ones.
> The ability to
> manipulate abstract symbols need not lead to only a single conclusion.
> The same skills are used in the East and in the West by an increasing
> number of non-SOM thinkers like Pirsig.
If so, every result of "symbol-manipulation" is an intellectual
pattern, not only a scientific theory but a religion, a myths of old
...anything, and the MOQ has lost all meaning.
> On top of non-SOM intellectual
> culture and non-SOM thinkers, there is my own experience. I've
> changed my worldview several times in the last 42 years and am
> convinced by that alone.
About you personal experience ..? but non-SOM thinkers? Who
are they? Those who protest the mind/matter dichotomy aren't,
they merely say that there is no such divide; Reality is really
mind, or mind is really a matter fallout .....etc. but does that help?
Pirsig's master-stroke was that of saying that the S/O is a
subdivision inside his own DQ/SQ, and I am aghast to see that so
many are willing to equal the intellectual level with the S of SOM
and thereby undo it.
> The intellect is versatile enough to hold any
> number of thought systems, alternative worldviews and constantly does
> so as it evolves. And she's just a baby. You ain't seen nothin yet.
As I see it the S/O value must be retained ..and that is only done
by relegating it the role of of the intellectual level. Just a (silly)
example: If for instance Islam won the Western world it would (in
your terms) mean that "the versatile intellect evolved to a new
world-view" ...wouldn't it? An intellect that can contain every
possibly outlook would make a retreat to the social level look like
an intellectual expansion ...no?
> Matt said:
> I think you can still claim that the spirit of what Pirsig wrote was
> leading to the equation of SOM and intellect though Pirsig never
> enunciated it.
> Paul replied:
> He has not only never enunciated it, he has denied it.
> dmb adds:
> Right. Pirsig has not only denied that but also asserted that the
> intellectual level is larger than SOM. "There are many sets of
> intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some to have
> more quality than others . . ."
I know that Pirsig has denied it. My admiration for Pirsig is great,
but he is human and may not have foreseen every aspect of his
idea. The MOQ has been subject to tens of thousands of posts
and seen from every possible angle. We "elders" may know more
about it than the master himself.
> Matt said:
> Barring even that, Bo can still define SOM as intellect and see how
> far he gets in developing, defending, and using his view. Does it
> clear up holes in Pirsig? Does it clear up other philosophical
> anamolies? If Bo did this (which is what I think he should do), then
> it wouldn't matter if it was in Pirsig at all.
> dmb says:
> Well, I think SOLAQI creates holes and the need for a fifth level and
> such, but more than that I'd like to take issue with the notion that
> its ok to insert our own alternate definitions of the MOQ's key terms.
We have (had) those who denounce he MOQ completely, who
bring in other philosophers as saying things better, and all kinds
of outlandish definition of the levels: Sub-inorganic levels, biology
as societies, societies as biology ...etc. etc. while I, who subscribe
to every single major tenet and only have spotted this single
"bug" .....
> To be frank, unless great care is taken to distinguish between our own
> ideas and Pirsig's ideas, I think such a practice is so confusing that
> its downright inconsiderate. As I understand it, Pirsig has some
> interesting ideas, he's fairly good at expressing and explaining those
> ideas and his book is proof of that. In that book, he tells us where
> he got his ideas and he tells us about the methods of organizing these
> ideas. He SHOWS US HIS MIND. He wants us to understand what he's
> saying. Its just that kind of book.
OK sobering observations.
> Of course its ok for people to have other ideas and compare them, but
> let's not pretend that there is no difference between an incorrect
> reading and an alternative idea. I mean, I think Bo would very much
> like the MOQ to be cast in his image and would love to persuade the
> author himself to convert.
He need not "convert", the SOL is the ORIGINAL MOQ as I met
it in ZMM.
> I love Bo, but let's not pretend SOLAQI is
> anything other than an interpretation of Pirsig.
It is the rejection of SOM which is the heart of the MOQ, the
static levels and their definitions aren't all that important, as long
as they are kept STATIC. The danger is the dynamic/chaotic
intellecters, but you are right, the SOL is an interpretation.
Besides, I don't think Pirsig objects to us exploring his ideas -
even in a critical sense - as long as it is from its own premises.
IMO
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 : Wed Jan 28 2004 - 08:19:33 GMT