Jonathan, Glen, Platt and Squad.
JONATHAN
You always put things in perspective and deserves no kick rather a
pat. For instance your pointing to Quality metaphysics as
Intellectual patterns - and as such part of itself in the dizziying
TV camera example - is a showstopper (you and Magnus ran into
it some time ago), and if that is the final word, it is back to SOM's
idealism: mind containing it all. Are you really comfortable with
that? And don't you at least see the reason for my kicking and
screaming since day one that Q-Intellect is not SOM's "mind". MIND is
no more equal to IntPoV than MATTER is equal to Inorganic patterns.
But first to
GLEN
who wrote:
> >I do not think that the MoQ should constitute a special category of
> intellectual PoV anymore than leopards are a special
> >category of organic PoV... Leopards and flatworms are different in
> degree but not in kind. If we grant special
> >status to MoQ then what about special status for Nook-Nook, God of
> Sleeping Fish? Both are intellecual PoV's, both
> >explain reality/experience. That one is higher quality
> >intellectual PoV shouldn't matter should it? ...
You are right in asserting that IntPoVs are IntPoVs regardless, but
Dynamic Quality does (if we accept Pirsig's hypothesis) make use of a
particular "weak" spot in the previous level to break free from its
laws. Life grew from the ambiguity of the carbon atom, Society from
the neural complexity of the primates and Intellect from social
"leisure". Each level seemingly creates its own "fall from power". So
why shouldn't DQ seek to break free from Intellect as well? And its
vehicle must necessarily be an idea. The MOQ will for ever remain an
IntPoV yet the stepping stone for DQ.
A friendly kick to Jonathan again: I bet you'll protest my phrasing
and say that 'neural complexity' is Intellect [thinking itself!], but
no.
PLATT
says:
> To transcend intellect is mysticism? Perhaps your definitions are
> different than mine. To quote from Pirsig:
> "But the Metaphysics of Quality also says that Dynamic Quality--the
> value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a
> laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing,
> inconclusive one--is another matter altogether. Dynamic Quality is a
> higher moral order than static scientific truth, and it is as immoral for
> philosophers of science to try to suppress Dynamic Quality as it is
> for church authorities to suppress scientific method."
Exactly, and my SOTAQI rests upon your initial MOQ-as-a-budding-new-
level idea. It may prove to be a glass house, but it was something
like physics where new particles at first are necessities of
equations, and only later discovered in experiments. I will probably
continue to pursue it until some contradiction with the MOQ is
encountered. I don't have Pirsig's backing; his former reply to
Anthony McWatt that Q-intellect is "the mental" looks ominous, but
more on this in the - still - coming reply to Jonathan.
Bodvar
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST