Glenn Bradford and Squad.
Welcome to the discussion Glenn.
You opened like this:
> Lila squaders!!
> I'm happy to be joining you as a new member and this is my first post.
> This month's program asks, in part:.....
> In answering this question we will have to examine both the subject-object
> metaphysics and the intellectual level and find out what they are......
...snip....
> cells are composed of atoms. animals are composed of cells.
> societies are composed of animals. But intellect is not composed of societies;
> at least Pirsig never says so......
...snip....
> I would modify the MOQ to say that:....
...snip snip.
What I say is with a wink of eye, but why is it that so many enter
because they see some paradox in the MOQ and proffer a modification?
My own SOLAQI is no modification only a necessary conclusion - of
course <grin>. That much said I found your entry very good and
well founded. Trouble with the Q-Intellect is not unusual and the
paradoxical sentences about societies vs individuals in connection
with individuals as carriers of intellect have been raised before
many times.
This month we discuss what MOQ interpretation we are to give the Greek
experience so I suggest we leave your general modification of the MOQ
to another topic or forum. It's not that it lacks interest (too much
aamof), but let's not stretch our host's good will too far :-).
Your point is that Q-Intellect is not composed of societies the way
that the lower levels are made up of the one below. This is no
difficulty within the MOQ, but results from a SOM leftover. A stone is
composed of atoms and yet no value rise from the Inorganic universe.
Cells are such a step into a new value realm; some new PRINCIPLE.
However, the lumping together of cells (organs) aren't societies until
under a yet greater value "umbrella".
Already at the Q-Society the composition metaphor fails, even more so
at the Q-Intellect where the building blocks aren't societies (as
such) but the social - um - value. No, there is no internal
contradiction in the Q-ladder system once you grasp the metaphysical
implications. You are right, however, in saying that the top rung is
so near and dear that we have difficulties in seeing its outline. My
SOM=Intellect idea is an attempt to lift ourselves above the treetops
to see the forest.
Yours sincerely
Bo
["Quality isn't IN the eye of the beholder.
Quality IS the eye of the beholder".
(Platt Holden)]
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:50 GMT