Gary,
I think you're making a couple of foundational mistakes here. First,
expecially on the lower levels, you are classifying by the supposed
mechanism of the sensation, rather than the content of the sensation.
The fact (which we have through the intellectual work of physiologists)
that tastes and smells arise through molecules tickling nerve cell
endings has nothing to do with whether what we taste is inorganic, or
biological. That is, we should be classifying according to content, not
to how we arrived at the content. We never experience photons or
variations in air compression. We seldom experience light or sound. We
mostly experience trees, walls, pictures, birds singing, etc.
Second, you seem to be saying because an experience is individual, then
it belongs in the 4th category. By this logic, since all experiences are
individual (the only exception I can think of would be telepathy), then
everything belongs to the fourth level. This would be solipsism, I
guess. It's certainly not the MOQ. Again, I think you are making a
mistake by thinking that feelings and thoughts can be considered as
static patterns all by themselves, ignoring that feelings and thoughts
(and sensations) are always feelings of X and thoughts of Y.
In sum, your mistake is to ask "in what category are the different types
of mental events". Instead, I think one should classify by what prompts
the events. So a feeling is, for example, a feeling of anger at someone,
and so that one is social, whether that someone is in my face at the
moment or I am reviewing a social interaction much later. A feeling of
hunger is biological. A feeling of satisfaction at solving a
mathematical puzzle is intellectual.
And so, one can do the same with thoughts, and classify as social those
thoughts that arise spontaneously in reaction to social settings, while
classifying as intellectual those that arise through detached reflection
on some set of patterns. So the Victorian who thinks that bohemians are
immoral because they will tear down the fabric of society is thinking
intellectually, while the post-modernist who thinks vengeful thoughts
about getting even with the fellow down the hall who criticized his
latest essay, is thinking socially.
Now the above is why I think you are misapplying the MOQ, but in fact,
that isn't really my main concern. My concern is to emphasize the value
of SOT, and it is immaterial to me whether SOT "really is" the 4th
level. I think it is, for the reason given in the previous paragraph.
The value of SOT is its *attempt* at so-called objectivity, at *trying*
to be unbiased, at fostering detachment. It is of higher quality than
monkey-mind thinking, and so it is important that we make that
distinction. If this distinction is not made, then to me the MOQ would
be worthless.
- Scott
Gary Jaron wrote:
> Hi Bo, Scott , John B [our resident lurker :)], and all,
> Before I can respond in detail to Bo's email of July 21st, some clear
> foundation needs to be laid. So, this email will be laying a foundation.
> Once we can agree on that foundation I will respond to Bo's July 21st email
> and we can continue our inquiry on SOLAQI, S/O divides, etc.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <skutvik@online.no>
> To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 11:19 AM
> Subject: Re: MD Consciousness
>
> [I left the above in as a place setting so we know what email we will be
> getting back to.]
>
> Now on to foundational questions.
>
> Pirsig set up a "game" of metaphysics in Lila. The rules of the game
> require everything that exists in all of reality to be able to be
> categorized/classified under Pirsig's 4 levels of Static patterns of
> Quality. I can't find the cite for this but I don't think that is
> necessary. We have only those four choices with Dynamic Quality as the
> Ground/Goal of Being as the last level. The major stumbling point is
> finding a place for the "Mind" stuff.
>
> As I presented in my 1st essay I give a list of and description of Brain to
> Mind processes. Here is a list and how I classify them. Once we have
> agreement of the stuff listed when can move forward:
>
> 1) Raw Sensory data: This is Inorganic photons, sound waves also Inorganic.
> Then the Biochemistry of taste [organic], pain sensation =organic, smell
> biochemistry=organic. This is non-controversial. If there is a question
> please raise it in your reply.
>
> 2) Feelings: this is moving away from Biochemistry and begins to cross over
> into...? These are the experience of feeling and not the thinking about the
> feeling as to explaining it or understanding it. Just the pure sensation
> which happens before we think about what it is and what it means.
> a) unpleasant sensation in my stomach or a feeling of nausea or the
> sensation of pain from the heat of the stove, or etc. These still are level
> 2 Organic biochemistry.
> b) "feeling like I am being watched" this is not solely biochemistry.
> c) "lucky hunch" not solely biochemistry
> d) sexual pleasure: a mixture of biochemistry and a feeling
> e) the feeling that is the reason we laugh: not just biochemistry
> f)etc.
> All of the above are not just biochemistry. They are not Social level 3
> stuff! This is all individually experienced stuff. We may have cultural
> influences as to why we find something funny, sexy, lucky, etc but it is not
> a social event or a collective experience. This is only private individual
> stuff/events. Under Pirsig's rules of the game there is only one level that
> all of this has got to go. That is 4th level, what Pirsig called "The
> Intellect". I don't care whether the word "Intellect" is appropriate or
> adequate or whatever, this is the label Pirsig gave us and we are stuck by
> his rule. Thus all this feeling stuff I listed in (2) has got to be level
> 4. Placing it in level 3 Social strikes me as odd and convoluted.
>
> 3) Emotions: This is moving further away from biochemistry and into "mind
> stuff"
> a) Jealousy, anger, rage, righteous indignation, all these emotions have a
> biochemical affect in our body going on but they seem to me to be thoughts,
> experiences which have been processed and word labels have been applied to
> the experience. Again this to me has got to be 4 level stuff. Calling is
> Social is wrong. Again there are social reasons why certain things make me
> angry, sends me into a rage, jealous, righteously indignant, etc. But the
> experience when it is happening is individual and personal. Which leaves
> only level 4=Q Intellect.
>
> 4)Irrational thoughts
> a) Dreams
> b) hallucinations
> c) idiosyncratic beliefs: phobias, fetishes, "Jesus talks to me out of my
> left toe", etc
> d) drug/alcohol induced sensory experience
>
> All of this stuff has a biochemical component but it is again not just
> biochemistry. It is again personal, individual experience and thus not
> Social. We are again left with Level 4 Q-Intellect.
>
> Okay, I thing you are getting the point. Level 4 "Q-Intellect" is not just
> rational thinking. It is the catch all place for all and every and any
> "mental stuff". The is the only choice Pirsig gives us. Unless you are
> trying to distort the Organic and or the Social level.
>
> Thus, if SOLAQI means something it must mean Subject/Object Logic as my list
> of 1-4, because all of that list is included in Q-Intellect.
>
> Now, you may not have a problem with this. I do not. But I didn't invent
> SOLAQI, so you need to address these foundational questions of what is
> included in Q-Intellect.
>
> Moving us towards clarity,
> Gary
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:28 BST