Dear Bo,
You wrote 28/8 10:52 +0200:
'forget about my antics and go directly to the ZAMM/LILA comparison'.
Be sure I gladly forget about your antics (until the next one). That's why I
maintain a private archive, because my memory is far less reliable than my
computer.
I already commented 24/8 10:13 +0200 to your (shorter 23/8 10:43 +0200)
ZAMM/LILA comparison:
'the Sophists are in retrospect representatives of lower quality
intellectual patterns of values (that stand for social experience, yes, but
that is irrelevant to me).'
and
'According to you between cavemen and Aristotle intellectual patterns of
values did exist, but as advanced social patterns of values that were not
rebelling yet against their parents. In my opinion your position blurs the
distinction between social and intellectual patterns of values in a way that
is inconsistent with Pirsig's hardware/software/novel metaphor for the
(discrete) Q-levels. You can only convince me of your position by showing
that a comparable transition occurred between biological and social and
between inorganic and biological AND that doing away with Pirsig's idea of
discrete levels has advantages for a metaphysics.
According to me intellectual patterns of values started going off on
purposes of their own immediately after their birth, for instance by
creating mythology in much more detail than was necessary for their role of
serving social patterns of values. Trying to 'control' the next lower level
is not a distinctive feature of being a separate Q-level for me, because it
can too easily be mixed up with the competition for domination between
patterns of values of the same level. I think Pirsig's idea of 'intellect'
trying to dominate 'society', 'society' trying to dominate 'biology' etc.
was not a very helpful one and I am trying to do away with it in my MoQ.'
I fully agree with the first 3 paragraphs (see underneath), your account
from ZAMM of how the subject/object metaphysics came to be. I stop agreeing
when you superimpose LILA and write: 'as Socrates and Plato ..etc. promoted
the new objective approach against this subjective threat - and
ucceeded - it indicates that the S/O divide isn't merely another
intellectual pattern, but the intellectual level itself'. For me this is a
clear case of 'competition for domination between patterns of values of the
same level'. Software doesn't try to kill a novel for trying to be a new
level. It is simply unaware of it. Socrates WAS killed.
I have spelled out my disagreement with David B. about myths etc. being
social reality clear enough. This does not confirm your view in my eyes.
So this is one of your antics again, Bo. Rephrasing your SOLAQI-idea again
and again (this time without mentioning the acronym, you make progress!)
without paying proper attention to counter arguments and alternatives.
I would be very interested if you would reconsider how your SOLAQI-idea
relates to your experience (and tell us about it), for that is what
discussing MoQ is about: It is about MoQ as 'symbols, created in the brain'
and how they 'stand for patterns of experience'.
Of course I would also still appreciate to know 'whether you can't find
valuable elements in my "definitions" of Q-intellect, elements that relate
to your experience, and comment to them, instead of defending your ideas
against mine'.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
At the end of ZAMM is the account of how the subject/object metaphysics
came to be (starting on page 365 in my Corgi Paperback) I can't point to
Pirsig using that phrase, but I guess it's obvious and also that it was
gradual. With Socrates: Truth (that which is independent of what anyone
thinks about it) versus the Sophists. With Plato: Ideas/Shadows and even
with Aristotle it had only reached the Substance/Appearance form, but it had
started on the development that - after a long hibernation through the Dark
Ages - became our Mind/Matter world-view - the SOM!
It's equally clear that Phaedrus' sympathy is with the Sophists because he
had found that the Areté that the former preached was identical to Quality
(On page 368 P. says about Protagoras' "Man-the-measure-of-all-things"
sentence that it is what he himself is saying about Quality). The impression
one is left with after finishing ZAMM is that Socrates and Plato are the
villains that managed to eradicate quality from existence.
Before entering LILA it must be pointed out that the MOQ hadn't reached its
final form in ZAMM, thus the development is not seen as a level shift, but
listen to this passage (368): " ...Plato abhors and damns the Sophists
without restraint, not because they are low and immoral people ..he damns
them because they threaten mankind's first beginning grasp of the idea of
truth ....if that idea had been allowed to perish unrediscovered by the
Renaissance it's unlikely that we would be much beyond the level of
prehistoric man today. THE IDEAS OF SCIENCE AND TECNOLOGY ARE
DEAD-CENTERED ON IT. IT IS THE NUCLEUS OF IT ALL". (my capitals)
Now superimposing LILA on top of ZAMM this picture emerges: The
Sophist were the defenders of social value. Protagoras' sentence is it's
essence: What mankind (society) accept as reality IS reality! Then, as
Socrates and Plato ..etc. promoted the new objective approach against this
subjective threat - and succeeded - it indicates that the S/O divide isn't
merely another intellectual pattern, but the intellectual level itself. The
whole
development can also be seen as a movement from the old mytological past
(Myths the social reality according to David Buchanan) and thus confirms
the same view.
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:23 BST