(and Roger and 3WD)
> > [Roger's] latest words " patterns of REALITY [...] are simplified,
> sliced and
> > diced subjective and objective intellectual divisions of the
> > undifferentiated seamless continuum", seems to deny that any static
> > of reality are there outside.
> That's the point Marco. The static patterns aren't "there outside" as
> static patterns.
That's the point, Jonathan. You fall in the solipsistic trap.
The MOQ wants to explain the universe as it was also before the birth of any
intellect. By saying that the intellectual patterns arise from social
patterns, and the social from biological and the biological from inorganic,
IMHO it simply means that there has been a time in which no intellectual
patterns, and no intellect was there.
I agree that the 4 level distinction is purely an intellectual
classification, but what's "outside there" is not pure DQ. Every existing
"thing" is composed necessarily by DQ+SQ, as DQ without SQ can't exist and
All existing "things" has been formed by the continual superimposition of
diverse patterns of value.
> We don't know what is "outside" until we can bring some
> of it "inside", and then it isn't outside anymore. "IT" could be given
> any number of names, and I think that "DQ" as described by Pirsig is as
> good a name as any. DQ is how we avoid the empty pit of solipsism.
Firstly, if you don't escape from the trap of what's "inside" Vs what's
"outside" you are still in a SOM view. The MOQ view is IMO that intellect
codes value into intellectual patterns.
Again I ask you, Roger and 3WD for the same question:
If static patterns of value are only intellectual, how do you explain this
strange property of cats to produce always and only cats? Is this illusion?
Why don't you answer?
According to the "gravity" Vs. gravity thread, it's clear that my idea of
"CAT" is an intellectual pattern of CAT, that is a biological pattern (and
my cat is an individual modeled on the basis of that CAT). There will be
never perfect matching between "CAT" and CAT, but I can say that' s evident
that "CAT" is an approximation of CAT. You say that with DQ we avoid
solipsism: but solipsism is not to say that "There's nothing outside"; it's
to say that "What we know is all built inside". Exactly your position when
you say that DQ is outside and SQ is inside:
> DQ is preintellectual, SQ is intellectualized.
According to what evidence?
> > The materialist viewpoint is that there's an external world that comes
> > before intellect. By this position, intellect is active historically
> > senses, which are driven by an "external objective reality".
> ROGER (quoting Pirsig):
> > > But this highest quality intellectual pattern itself comes
> > > before the external world, not after, as is commonly
> > > presumed by the materialists.
> > But that materialistic viewpoint is appearance. Pirsig's point is that
> > external objects APPEAR historically before, but, at the contrary,
> they come
> > after.
> The point is that DQ comes before, SQ after.
Nein. DQ and SQ are coexisting. Every "thing" is composed by both. My cat
is an individual modeled on the CAT static biological pattern, but it's able
maybe to evolve as it is made of Quality.
CAT=Biological pattern of value
"CAT"=Intellectual pattern of value
cat(s)=Individual(s), (all) made of DQ modeled according to the static CAT.
> Intellectualization-Realization-Conception as a PROCESS comes in the
> middle ("the great divider").
> As a pattern (concept) it comes much later. (Obviously, you have to have
> consciousness before you can have self consciousness).
Pattern and concept are not the same. Perhaps I could agree that concepts
are intellectual patterns. Or what's the difference between intellectual
patterns and the other kind of patterns?
(on INTELLECT AS PLANNING).
All right. I just tried to say that finally this "planning" is not able to
actually ensure that direction you are trying to give to your future;
there's no assurance of good end, there's no assurance of morality. So I
don't see great difference between this "conscious" intellectual planning
and the "unconscious" biological evolution. They both can be moral and
immoral; they both can destroy or create.
This is Pirsig about the Darwinian concept of evolution:
<< "survival of the fittest" [...] Fittest for what? Fittest for survival?
That reduces to "survival of the survivors", which doesn't say anything.
"Survival of the fittest" is meaningful only when "fittest" is equated with
"best", which is to say "Quality".[...] Natural selection is Dynamic Quality
Planning is an intellectual activity. It's not intellect.
I agree with Magnus:
> Planning, design, logic, mathematics etc. are all just examples of what
> we can use intellectual patterns for. To say that any of those is the
> definition of the level is to say that the taste of chocolate is the
> definition of the biological level.
> > Actually, my "fear" was just about some terrible lines you wrote last
> > about how this society is good, while intellect is a quasi - monster.
> Did Bo really say that? I think that I agree ...
On martedi 9 Maggio Bo wrote:
<<Funny, I have never felt oppressed by society, but all the more by
intellect. God! It came to me this very moment. Now I understand
why the MOQ fascinates me so much and why everything looks
trite in comparison. It is liberation from the intellectual
MONSTER!!!! Breaking free from society is peanuts these days,
but breaking free from intellect/SOM is the new heroism. That's
why Pirsig's ideas are shunned by all "intellectuals". Phew!
Another epiphany. Thanks David B. for switching me on to it. >>
I protested that according to Pirsig's view, the Nazis represented the
intellect serving the social. Intellect can be a monster, if used for
immoral purposes, or our salvation, just like water can be your life
(drinking) or your death (drowning).
When intellect is subject to social goals is immoral and dangerous. For
centuries this was its main function. Just in this century is trying to
free itself from the social goals. This is the key to avoid all this hate to
the intellect I find in many (especially Bo). SOM is not the whole
q-intellect: it's the intellect serving the q-social.
Mark, I hope I will find the time for your SOLAQI paean. For now, thanks for
your prompt answer.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST