Hi Jonathan and Squad
You wrote:
> And yet, Pirsig himself says that DQ = preintellectual reality and
> SQ = intellectualised reality.
Where does he say this?
> Pirsig's view of Intellect AS A LEVEL seems to confuse all this and
> leads to things like:-
> Inorganic + Biological = Objects or Matter
> Society + Intellect = Subjects or Mind
>
> I don't see that anyone is really happy with this, even among our MoQ
> conservatives.
Am I a MoQ conservative? Anyway, I'm not happy with it either. The
reason is that it tries to squeeze the four-dimensional MoQ into
a two-dimensional SOM. You lose two, very crucial I might add,
dimensions in the process.
> Some months ago, Maggie Hettinger and I discussed (partly in
> sci.philosophy.meta) whether we regarded the 4 levels as 2+2 (like
> Pirsig) or 3+1. I argued the latter, with Intellect somehow abstracted
> from the other 3 levels.
>
> I think most of us have no problem in accepting
> -organisation of molecules into living cells/organisms
> -organisation of organisms into societies.
That's just one-dimensional, hierarchical but one-dimensional,
organizations. You don't win any explanatory power compared to SOM
that way. To take an old example, the taste of chocolate would be
deducible to inorganic patterns, but we all know it isn't.
> But it is not obvious that societies organise into "intellect". To
> propose that requires all sorts of justifications and
> word games.
Patterns doesn't organize themselves into higher levels. They are just
providing the foundation for higher levels. There's a difference.
> Where does that leave intellect? Well, it seems to be off to the side -
> looking across. It's an abstraction of the three levels. The 3 levels
> are InPoV, BioPoV and SocPoV and together constitute MATTER. They are
> the
> OBJECT for Intellect which sits as MIND and SUBJECT. To
> regard this division as a primary metaphysical division is SOM.
You're doing it again! You squeeze four dimensions into two. Have
you ever seen a four-dimensional cube? Well, the three-dimensional
"shadow" looks like a small cube inside a larger one. Then, the two
dimensional shadow of the three-dimensional cube looks like a
haystack. That's what you do to the MoQ, you smash something simple
and beautiful into an incomprehensible SOM mish-mash.
> But, you will note that in the 3-tier scheme, Intellect is excluded as a
> level because it has no empirical reality.
No empirical reality???
First, what are you reading right now? It's probably characters formed on
a screen by illuminating it in a certain pattern. We can describe the
inorganic representation of what you see with physics, but you're not
interested in that, you're interested (I hope :) in the intellectual
patterns I communicate to you using those inorganic patterns.
Second, a 3+1 world view would restate the futile assumption that there
is an independent reality "out there" that can be described with
intellectual patterns.
> It seems to be some abstract,
> almost mythical construct which lacks substance (ha).
Actually, all levels except the inorganic lack substance.
> Yet, without it,
> the whole 3-tier cake no longer has any structure. It is the structuring
> itself which IS intellect/intellectualisation.
Yes, but it's nonetheless dependent on it. It's not some free floating
realm of its own.
> So folks, is my sacrilege to be called SOM, MOM or just plain rubbish?
Hmm.. tough one :)
Anyway, I guess my never ending complaints about how others see the four
levels might seem off topic from time to time. But as I see it, questions
like this months' topic can not be resolved without an IMO correct view
of the levels. As Diana said, you keep getting into circles and can't get
out.
Magnus
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 - 16:02:43 BST