LS Re: Level 5 ....?


Horse (horse@wasted.demon.nl)
Tue, 8 Sep 1998 17:13:32 +0100


Hi Bo et. al.

BO WROTE:
> Let's imagine that the Quality "movement" is a budding new moral
> level, still indistinguishable from Intellect - "in its service" so
> to say, but we sense a conflict. Intellect rejects the new morality
> once it shows its true intentions, and such a show is when old Bo
> says that "mind" (of S-O Metaphysics) isn't the holy grail, but a
> mere Q-stage. Then Intellect panics: "Me,"thinking itself"
> (Jonathan), not the container of everything (Donny) .. what is this
> nonsense?!" No, Intellect will newer recognize a level above itself,
> but DQ is able to; we are not solely of Intellect (after reading
> LILA).

I'm not entirely sure why you see the quality movement as a new
level. Surely it is more like the consolidation of your SOTAQI idea.
The Quality movement, spearheded by MoQ is the intellectual
replacement for SOM.
There also seems to be a conflict when you say that Intellect
cannot recognise a level beyond itself. Is this not the same as
saying that Social PoV's cannot recognise Intellectual PoV's. If this
is the case then why did Pirsig say that it is immoral for Society to
attempt to dominate intellect. If Society cannot recognize Intellect
then how can it attempt to dominate it.
Intellect may refuse to accept that there is a level higher than itself,
as I think you intimate, but this will bring it into conflict with the
higher level. This may even casue a situation similar to Intellect
and Biology ganging up on Society, except in this case it will be
Level 5 and Society that gang up on Intellect. Intellect will suffer -
badly.

=================================================
HORSE WROTE:
> > But each level (or combination of levels) is responsible for the
> > creation of the next level. Higher 'static' levels emerge from lower
> > 'static' levels through the action of dynamic quality.

BO REPLIED:
> Responsible? Yes, in the sense that it is the necessary base for a new
> level, but all static levels resists any outgrowth. Intellect would
> just hate to see its elevated position becoming second to a Q-level.
>

But if a new level emerges from a level below it then conflict is
damaging to both. As I said above, if Level 5 and Society get
together to attack Intellect then there will be serious trouble for
Intellect. Intellect is in a good position to work with Level 5 to
prevent Social dominance. This is something similar to my
comments some time back about Intellect and the Internet
achieving dominance over Society.

HORSE WROTE:
> > A lower level is not composed of the patterns of value of the higher
> > level so there is no direct experience of it. We do not partake of
> > that level.

BO REPLIED:
> This passage I don't fully understand. Are you saying that we don't
> partake of levels below Intellect? If so I protest. Or perhaps you
> mean we won't partake of a level above Intellect whereupon I protest
> even more.

We __DO__ partake of levels below Intellect. All PoV's at the
Intellectual level partake of levels below Intellect. But I don't believe
that IntPoV's 'possess' patterns of value at Level 5. Its more the
reverse - Level 5 PoV's 'possess' Level $ and below PoV's. The
border (or point of transition) between Levels 4 and 5 is fuzzy, so
to limited degree I suppose we do partake. I'm not quite sure yet.
Got any good idea's?

Horse

"Making history, it turned out, was quite easy.
It was what got written down.
It was as simple as that!"
Sir Sam Vimes.

--
homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad
unsubscribe/queries - mailto:lilasquad@moq.org



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:46 CEST