Hi Bo and Squad,
It seems Bodvar and I still have a bone to pick, and I'd like to make my
position clear on his most pertinent critics :
B. Skutvik wrote:
>
> Dear LilaSquad.
>
> DENIS POISSON started his impressive post of 14 September by
> writing:
>
> > One recurring problem we seem to see in those discussions is the nature
> > of the levels. I believe many people (as Glenn's post indicates) still
> > see them as ontological "things", entities in their own right.
> > This is not so.
> > The levels are intellectual PoVs......snip
>
> I agree about the problem of seeing the static levels the way that
> Glenn does: Q-Biology as composed of matter atoms in SOM's objective
> sense. But to remedy this Denis throws the baby out with the water:
> "The levels are intellectual PoVs" he declares and I get the feeling
> that they become SOM's subjects. In the mind!!!?
>
> The static levels are neither things nor intellect (in the mind).
> This is sorted out at a much earlier stage when P of LILA
> demonstrates that existence is VALUE. One may be sceptical to his
> proofs, but if you accept them you have entered the Q universe
> and the nature of the levels are no bones of contention.
>
Bo, I don't, and never will say that REALITY is in the mind, and only in
the mind. I'm no solipsist.
REALITY is Value, or QUALITY, I agree with Pirsig on that point, and
therefore, ultimately unknowable. It is the ongoing process of
existence, and only by mystic apprehension can this be really
understood, even if the notion of *knowing* seems sorely inappropriate
for this kind of revelation. Perhaps saying that one *becomes* QUALITY
would be a closer shot for describing this mystic process.
But when we talk about REALITY, when we enter this degenerate field of
behaviour, all we are talking about is how to classify our experiences
as Intellectual Static Patterns of Value (Words, and other complex
structures of meaning : sentences, equations, models, you name it).
Therefore, even if what gives birth to the pictures we draw ISN'T
intellectual (it's Quality), the pictures themselves are *nothing* but
Intellectual Patterns of Value. Therefore, the levels being Structured
Meanings describing REALITY, they ARE IntPoVs, and nothing is thrown out
because according to MOQ, we know that REALITY/QUALITY is still there
outside, waiting for us.
As one of my philosophy teachers said : "When you say "dog", no dogs
come out of your mouth". When you say that there IS an inorganic level,
what you are really saying is : "I'm classifying all those similar
experiences into a class, an Intellectual Static Pattern, that I will
therefore be able to talk about, and call that the Inorganic level. I do
this because it is convenient, useful, and, quite frankly, because I
think it is fun to do so. It has Dynamic Quality. But what is *really*
out there is QUALITY."
> Remember the figure of gestalt psychology that can be seen as
> either a black vase or two white faces. One can alternate between the
> two but it's impossible to see both simultaneously. The talk
> about Q-Intellect as a level where the rest of the Q-levels reside,
> in addition to itself - and the SOM for good measure -
> is to give the impression that one hovers at a meta-metaphysical
> stage where the two are viewed "objectively", but it's an illusion.
>
Well, I don't really understand what you are saying about Q-Intellect
and SOM being viewed "objectively" (wasn't this term scraped long ago
along with SOM ?) but I think my second post will make it clear why the
Q-Intellect is indeed capable of containing itself. This, as Magnus
(thanks for the initial insight, BTW, I found it very valuable) and
myself clearly demonstrated, is a function, a characteristic of
language, the DNA of Intellect. Since any assertion (Intellectual
Pattern of Value) can be talked about, analysed and criticized, the
Intellectual level is indeed capable of recursive operations. SOM made
the first recursive step by defining Meaning, the bare bricks of
Language and Intellect, and MOQ the second recursive step by defining
Metaphysics, the houses in the Intellect City.
To prove my point I'll quote our master, of whom we're all disciples,
Robert M. Pirsig (and I'll note how many disagree with this by shouting
loud how their mind's their own, etc. ;). He really had it all figured
out, you know.
This is taken from 'Lila', chp. 8, p114 (brackets indicate my adjuncts)
:
"If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality [and
meaning is characterized according to Truth] then we're permitted only
one construction of things [one metaphysics] - that which corresponds to
the "objective world" - and all other constructions are unreal [the
subjective field being for assertions that cannot be proven true or
false, the unexpressed bias being that such assertions are valueless].
But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it
becomes possible for more than one set of truths [more than one
metaphysics] to exist. Then one doesn't seek for the ultimate "Truth".
One seeks instead the highest quality intellectual explanation of things
[the best metaphysics; i.e. the MOQ] with the knowledge that if the past
is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken provisionally;
as useful until something better comes along. One can then examine
intellectual realities [metaphysics] the same way he examines paintings
in an art gallery [a good analogy for the Intellectual level], not with
an effort to find which one is the "real" painting, but simply to enjoy
and keep those that are of value. There are many sets of intellectual
realities [many metaphysics] in existence [in the Intellectual level]
and we can perceive some to have more quality than others [based on how
much of our experiences they are able to explain, for example], but that
we do is, in part, the result of our history and current patterns of
value."
I think it is clear now that the MOQ *does* define metaphysics and the
Intellectual level, and that it does so within the Intellectual level
itself (where else is 'Lila' located, after all ?).
> This much said, the rest of Denis post is excellent - even if he
> doesn't buy my SOM as Q-Intellect idea. Or does he?
>
> > The reason I cannot think of SOM as being equal to the Q-Intellect is
> > that it is already too perfect, too developped to be a good candidate
> > for the post. So I've got to find a good (even if it's a little loosely
> > defined) one. Language seems to be such a candidate for many people.
> > It's supposed to be different from society, but is it ? Bees
> > communicate, wolves do too, but that's not language they're using. So
> > what is language ? I'll give you a linguist definition.
>
> Yes SOM is well developed, but I can't see that as an objection, to
> the contrary: Its division dominates our outlook.
>
As my second post will (I hope) make clear, it isn't so much SOMs but
Language's propriety of definition that dominates our outlook. The error
of Aristotle (and of Logic too, BTW) was to define the undefinable :
meaning. That's what was "too defined, too perfect, too developped",
finally. SOM was the natural conclusion of this initial misstep.
> Denis introduces language as the candidate for Q- Intellect, and
> his linguist lecture is good. Splendid! Human - symbolic - language
> as different from other means of communication; the semantic vs
> phonetic..etc. Perfect! My own "abstraction" that I wrote about to
> Diana has much in common with it, and I wonder if Denis knows Charles
> Peirce's Semiosis (sign) metaphysics?
>
No, but any reference would be welcome.
> Denis presents HIS vision Q-Intellect:
>
> > So what is the Q-Intellect ? Try this : it is the greater patterns in
> > which static intellectual patterns organize themselves. Hierarchies,
> > relations, similarities, opposites, functions. A metaphysics. We define
> > the ontology (Ideas and Appearances, Substance and Forms, four classes
> > of Static Patterns of Value, Spirits and Elements, Yin and Yang), then
> > the relationships between things.
>
> and is somehow back into his - um - mindlike intellect where all
> these patterns organize themselves. Even SOM (See below) and the
> Q-levels.
>
> Yet, I find Denis' so interesting that I can't but think he is on the
> brink of ......something (I almost wrote "understanding" :-)). "
>
You should have, I was. ;)
Writing this post was a kind of Dynamic experience where the notions I
was talking about rearranged themselves as I was writing, as if
*something* was pointing things out to me as I wrote them. Quite
exhilarating, really.
> He examines SOM:
>
> > What is SOM ? A metaphysics with great Dynamic potential. It created
> > guidelines to access high-Quality intellectual patterns, defining
> > Quality as Good Intellectual patterns : Truth....
>
> Yes, yes, the Q-idea springs from SOM; it is DQ's attempt to free
> itself from it's own latest static latch. But once evolution - even
> from a new and unsafe position - has seen existence from on
> high SOM is no longer ALL OF IT. Some people speaks so lightly about
> metaphysics as if something we chose and picks from, but it's not so.
>
> Denis understands that too:
>
> > The real metaphysics of the Sophists is now lost to us, except for its
> > central tenet : Arete. Its greatest tool, rhetoric (its replicative
> > system, we could say) lost its battle with dialectics. Perhaps its
> > ontology wasn't good enough, didn't include enough of the world. Perhaps
> > it was too centered on the social level and lost because SOM had a
> > better grip upon the intellectual level. Who knows ?
>
> Once the MOQ - allegedly - is our metaphysics there cant be another
> all embracing world view inside it. It can however be seen as the
> highest static level of the MOQ. "SOM-as-Intellect" is misleading,
> therefore SOLAQI (Subject-Object Logic as Q-Intellect).
>
I think I might have misunderstood you all along, now. I thought you
meant SOM was Q-Intellect, and MOQ was a new level, a fifth level.
Wasn't it ?
Still, S/O Logic as Q-Intellect ? You'll have to define those S/O a bit
more to me, as well as what you mean by Logic. There are many different
systems of formal logic, you know. I still think my vision of the
Q-Intellect is more inclusive.
> Thanks for reading and thanks to Denis, his was one Harley of a post.
>
> Bo
Thanks for your appreciation, I hope my last post and this one will make
things clearer. I'm trying to cut all loose threads in my reasoning, but
it looks like a never-ending task, sometimes. Well, any new insight is
(sigh) still welcome. ;-)
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT