Re: MF Solipsism

From: Jonathan Marder (
Date: Wed Jun 28 2000 - 15:27:24 BST

Hello Marco and Focs,

> > MARCO:
> > > [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
> > patterns of reality are there outside.
> >

> > That's the point Marco. The static patterns aren't "there outside"
> > static patterns.
> That's the point, Jonathan. You fall in the solipsistic trap.

Marco, I think that you are misunderstanding what I wrote. A "static
pattern" is a represention (map). What is outside is the "thing" itself
as part of Roger's "undifferentiated seamless continuum".

> 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
> IMHO it simply means that there has been a time in which no
> patterns, and no intellect was there.
Neither was their an inorganic LEVEL or a biological LEVEL. The levels
and patterns of the MoQ are REPRESENTATIONS of what was. Similarly,
Newtons law of gravity did not exist 500 years ago. However, Newton's
law as we know it today provides a reasonable description of gravity
today, 500 years ago and 5,000,000,000 years ago (relativity
considerations notwithstanding).

> I agree that the 4 level distinction is purely an intellectual
> classification, but what's "outside there" is not pure DQ. Every
> "thing" is composed necessarily by DQ+SQ, as DQ without SQ can't
exist and
> vice versa.
> All existing "things" has been formed by the continual superimposition
> diverse patterns of value.

Depends on what you mean by "thing(s)". Better to write
 ..."existance is composed of SQ + DQ" and
..."existance IS the continual superimpoisition of diverse patterns of

> > 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
> > any number of names, and I think that "DQ" as described by Pirsig is
> > 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
> "outside" you are still in a SOM view. The MOQ view is IMO that
> codes value into intellectual patterns.
Marco, I don't see this as a SOM view at all. Perhaps you misinterpret
my use of the word "outside", that I took from Roger. In any case, it is
something of a reversal of the SO position that would say that objective
reality (matter etc.) is "out there" and our subjective perception of it
"in our minds".

> Again I ask you, Roger and 3WD for the same question:
> If static patterns of value are only intellectual, how do you explain
> strange property of cats to produce always and only cats? Is this
> Why don't you answer?
The answer is that the static patterns have to provide a useful and
commicable description of COMMON experience. If you ask a Hindu, these
patterns are indeed "illusions" (Maya). I call them reality (i.e. th
reality we KNOW).

> According to the "gravity" Vs. gravity thread, it's clear that my idea
> "CAT" is an intellectual pattern of CAT, that is a biological pattern
> my cat is an individual modeled on the basis of that CAT). There will
> never perfect matching between "CAT" and CAT, but I can say that' s
> 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";
> to say that "What we know is all built inside". Exactly your position
> you say that DQ is outside and SQ is inside:

I mostly agree with all this, except your definition of solipsism.

[Marco, later]
> CAT=Biological pattern of value
> "CAT"=Intellectual pattern of value
> cat(s)=Individual(s), (all) made of DQ modeled according to the static

The problem is that the biological pattern, like any other pattern is an
in intellectualIZED pattern, but not necessarily an intellectual
pattern. The distiction you are trying to make sounds like Plato's forms
and appearances.

> > DQ is preintellectual, SQ is intellectualized.
> >
> According to what evidence?
No "evidence". This is the way Pirsig talks about it (see the quotes I
provided for Bodvar, especially the "hot stove" example)

> > MARCO:
> > > The materialist viewpoint is that there's an external world that
> > > before intellect. [snip]
> > 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
> > > 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.

It depends whether you mean temporally or in terms of "metaphysical
"Before" the application of intellect, you can't define anything.
Intellect is the knife.

> > 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
> > consciousness before you can have self consciousness).
> >
> Pattern and concept are not the same. Perhaps I could agree that
> are intellectual patterns. Or what's the difference between
> patterns and the other kind of patterns?
The same as the difference between "intellectual and
If you're interested in this, we've been through it all before (e.g. see
 from December 1988 - )

> > ---------------------------------------->
> 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
> and the "unconscious" biological evolution. They both can be moral and
> immoral; they both can destroy or create.
True, the direction may be the same, but IMO the MECHANISM is different,
thus a huge difference in the rate of progress.
To put it in thermodynamic terms:
"The second law of thermodynamics is time's arrow" (A. Eddington, 1925)
"but chemical kinetics is time's variable clock." (F.L. Lambert, 1996)

> This is Pirsig about the Darwinian concept of evolution:
> << "survival of the fittest" [...] Fittest for what? Fittest for
> That reduces to "survival of the survivors", which doesn't say
> "Survival of the fittest" is meaningful only when "fittest" is equated
> "best", which is to say "Quality".[...] Natural selection is Dynamic
> at work.>>
> Planning is an intellectual activity. It's not intellect.
> I agree with Magnus:
> > Planning, design, logic, mathematics etc. are all just examples of
> > we can use intellectual patterns for.

When I say "planning" I also mean "mapping" and "pattern making", which
covers all of logic and mathematics. I can't think of any examples that
are not included.

> When intellect is subject to social goals is immoral and dangerous.
> centuries this was its main function. Just in this century is trying
> 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.

When intellect is subject to IMMORAL social goals it is immoral.
Intellect completely free of social goals would be AMORAL. I consider
this both dangerous and the antithesis of the MoQ.

Jonathan -

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:24 BST