Dear Squad
Pre Scriptum:
Its Sunday at my longitude and I have worked on the following since
yesterday being absentminded to my dear wife and all. I have
deliberately NOT looked into today's mail as there possibly is much
material that makes my statements outdated. Forgive me, but if this
is to be published at all I just have to post it as it is.
*******
This has been a most rewarding month. We have reached the very
kernel of the MOQ and even if my idea that Intellect is identical with
SOM has been treshed badly - trashed outrightly - everyone seem to
acknowledge what is at stake. The formulation (of the topic):
Seen in the light of the MOQ, what is it that is described
in the last part of ZMM (The Greeks). Is it the emergence
of SOM, the"coming of age" of the Intellectual level,
or...?
had the effect that if both were confirmed the SOLAQI would have been
proved. There were different ways of avoiding my sly tactics ;-(.
Magnus
thinks that intellect already were formed to be used by SOM
Gregg
saw the said ZAMM event as the "coming of age" of Intellect, but was
unsure about the SOM part
Todd
agreed that what was described was the emergence of SOM, but did not
understand the last half of the question.
Dave (DLT):
wanted to modify my SOLAQI into: "SOM was/is the Western world's
dominate, stable, intellectual pattern. The MoQ, a new, not so
stable intellectual pattern, challenges that dominance. It remains
to be seen whether the challenge will be successful".
Diana
keeps it suspended, I think she sees some of its virtues (more is to
be demonstrated in this message).
Denis
started a sceptic, but after rummaging through his mailbox found that
he had agreed to it earlier. Today, however he turned his thumb down.
Roger agrees to part of my argumentation, but disagrees to some
other. Let's see if this post makes any difference.
David B
has not delivered any verdict. Only in
Marco
do I spot an ally, at least he gives me the benefit of doubt. He
wrote somewhere (sorry I can't find it) that if MOQ was part of
Intellect it would be the enemy of a movement beyond.Exactly! A
"mind" Intellect that can contain the MOQ and SOM on equal footing
gives no opening for further development, and as this is an important
tenet of the MOQ, it sort of proves my point. What is the value of a
Intellect that merely contains all sorts of ideas? Thinking? Then a
level above would value no-thinking!! It is axiomatic the next level
goes against its parent. No, Intellect is one particular way of
thinking and DQ's way of breaking out from its last static prison
will be ANOTHER WAY OF THINKING.
I admit that Pirsig said in a letter to Anthony McWatt that he
regards Intellect equal to "mind". It bothers me greatly, but the
inventor himself is of course so steeped in it that he is in no danger
of letting the "matter" half of the dualism seep into it and thus SOM.
Marco
asked why not introduce "intelligence" (as a term), and I
highly recommend that. When we once discussed artificial
intelligence it was aired as a useful term - separate from the Q-
stage we call Intellect. I often feel that it is INTELLIGENCE that
many people mean when Q-intellect is discussed. For instance
Glenn Bradford :-).
BTW, Artificial Intelligence should become a monthly topic. I know
that someone with a degree in that field has just entered
Peter O'Neil (or Cntryforce?)
asked why the Sophists were so pivotal to P of ZAMM. The only known
statement is the ..man is the measure of all things... sentence
by Protagoras. This contains in a nutshell what Socrates hated:
"There's no truth except what people agree upon is good". This is
also the essence of Social value, but at the ZAMM stage the static
levels weren't yet formulated so why is it that the enemies of
Socrates automatically became friends of Phaedrus?
>From LILA we know that Intellect joins forces with Biology in its
crusade against Society. And if it is a rule (that any level allies
itself with its grandparent) then a movement beyond intellect will
necessarily join forces with Society. No wonder the rhetoricians were
Phaedrus' darlings, and what's more: It also underpins the Intellect
as SOM idea
Magnus wrote:
> Bo asked:
> > What strange vessel is Intellect that it can be used by SOM, perhaps
> > eptied of it and filled with other contents?
> Nah, let me use the dimension metaphor. SOM was probably one of the first
> entities that expanded reality much in the intellect dimension. In a way, that's
> still a "vessel", it can be emptied and filled with other contents, i.e.
> patterns, just as the biological level may be emptied (the dinos 65'' years
> ago) and filled again.
Here you are on thin ice Magnus. The dimension analogue is good, but
If anything a spatial dimension can't be emptied and filled with
another "value"; height can't turn into depth etc. The Biological
level weren't refilled with another kind of VALUE after the great
extinctions. Even if every organism should vanish, a new emergence of
life would be biological value nevertheless, and the value on top of
that would be social. Consequently, there must be an overall Intellect
VALUE that characterizes all its patterns and IMHO that is the
subject/object distinction. If anyone prefers to call it "thinking" or
"mind" it's fine with me, except the heavy SOM connotations.
Denis wrote:
> Bo, I'd really want to convince you about dropping the SOLAQI
> idea. It gives too much importance to the S/O split, and needlessly
> restrains our grasp of Intellect. My last post [ SOLAQI? Why not ?]
> gives the S/O split its right (good) place, I believe.
> If Subjects and Objects are fundamental, then I might just as well throw
> Pirsig's books out by the window, because my only chance to ever see a
> world mindfull of Quality is to become a mystic somewhere in the
> Himalayas.
If throwing away Pirsig's work would be the option I would drop the
SOLAQI like a hot iron, but his idea is at the base of it all. It is
your "too much" phrase that is wrong. The SO split is important; it is
our entire civilization, but can't you see; seeing it as one static
value level takes it down one peg from today's 'reality itself' status
and tucks it safely under the MOQ blanket instead of allegedly dumping
it in a metaphysical "waste basket". That is an impossibility; there's
nothing outside a metaphysics, which means that it will haunt us for
ever as a SOM apparition. Proper burying is important!!
Roger wrote:
> But first, I want to clarify an issue. A few days ago, Bo wrote the
> following and I said I agreed with it 100% while Denis called it a
> wallowing retreat back to SOM. This occurred in a post where Denis
> and I were supposedly arguing the same side. Let me paste the
> paragraph of note:
> Bo:
> >When concluding as I will below I appeal to your collective
> >goodwill. Theorizing, naming - thinking - about animals and things
> >even about thinking itself - is not going on in an abstract sphere
> >about something more real in another concrete sphere. Q- INTELLECT
> >IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE BI-SPHERIC DISTINCTION ITSELF. The
> >highest and most valuable stage that evolution has reached - yet.
> I read this as Bo saying that the intellectual level is the creator
> of the spheres. The distinction makes the 'abstract' and the
> 'concrete' realms. This I do agree with 100%. I also agree with
> Denis though that if Bodvar meant that the spheres have independent
> existence and are 'discovered' by the intellect , that Bo would
> indeed be prescribing a Cartesian dualism.
Rog I regret being so enigmatic to you, your way of posing the issue
is most elegant. How I am to reply not to muddle it further? Does
suffice to say that the abstrac/concrete spheres have NO INDEPENDENT
EXISTENCE in a MOQ context - not any more than the other static
levels. What HAVE independent existence is only the DQ/SQ spheres.
Also do I regret raising the Aristotle issue, it side-tracked us a
little. Marco put things in order by his digging into what the said
philosopher really said and its relationship with how we regard
things today.
Rog went on:
> So let me ask EVERYBODY that contributed this month, and all the lurkers, two
> questions:
> 1) Are all patterns of value also intellectual patterns?
> 2) Were the 4 levels of the MOQ discovered or created?
This will be a repetition of the above, but here is the result of the
Norwegian jury:
Q1. No, neither "also" nor "just" !
Q2. CREATED by Robert Maynard Pirsig as a representative
of Quality, not as a cerebral exercise.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:52 GMT