JONATHAN SHOOTS BACK AT MAGNUS'S "MULTIDIMENSIONAL" BALLOON
Hi Magnus, Mary and Squad,
I was expecting much more flak than this!
Magnus, I think you will have to much better than this to defend the 4
levels. Let me deal with your points one by one.
JONATHAN
>> And yet, Pirsig himself says that DQ = preintellectual reality and
>> SQ = intellectualised reality.
>
MAGNUS
>Where does he say this?
The statement is not an exact quote or paraphrase, but here some exact
quoutes which reinforce my interpretation:-
>From ZAMM (Chapter 20):-
"... ANY intellectually conceived object is ALWAYS in the past and
therefore UNREAL. Reality is always the moment of vision BEFORE the
intellectuallization takes place. THERE IS NO OTHER REALITY. This
preintellectual reality is what Paedrus felt he had properly indetified
as Quality. Since all intellectually identifiable things must emerge
FROM this preintellectual reality, uantity is the PARENT, the SOURCE of
all subjects and objects."
[capitalized words emphasized by italics in the original text]
>From Lila (Chapter 5)
"...Whether the stove in the cause of the low quality or whether
possibly something else is the cause is not yet absolutely certain. It
is the primary empirical reality from which such things as stoves and
heat and oaths are later intellectually constructed."
There are probably other relevant passages in the two books. Now I'm
waiting for Magnus or someone else to say that I've twisted or
misinterpreted Pirsig's words.
>
>> 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.
Neither was Pirsig happy with it (Chapter 13 of Lila):-
"A conventional subject-object metaphysics uses the same four static
patterns as the Metaphysics of Quality, dividing them into two groups:
inorganic-biological patterns called 'matter,' and social-intelelctual
patterns called 'mind.' But this division is the source of the problem.
When a subject-object metaphysics regards matter and mind as eternally
separate and eternally unalike, it creates a platypus bigger than the
solar system."
>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.
Sorry Magnus, but the "multidimensional" argument you invented seems to
confuse things. Pirsig called his 4 pattern types "levels". Levels STACK
UP along a SINGLE axis (though each level spreads along the
perpendicular axes).
If Pirsig had intended a four-dimensional MoQ, he would never have
described them as levels. Naturally, Magnus is entitled to invent his
own MoQ, but I regard his "four-dimensional" MoQ as a gross departure
(far more radical than anything I ever suggested.
JONATHAN:-
>> 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.
>
MAGNUS
>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.
I already dealt with the "dimensions" issue above. Regarding the
chocolate, let me resurrect a discussion between myself and Magnus on
sci.philosophy.meta from last July:-
<<<<<
>> Magnus Berg wrote in message <35ABE89E.EADACC97@DataVis.se>...
>> >You can't express
>> >the taste of chocolate in terms of inorganic value.
>> ...
>> [JONATHAN]
>> Not only can you express it, you can use that description to recreate
>> the taste!
>> Manufacturers do this with chocoloate and other items, with varying
>> degrees of success.
>
>[MAGNUS]
>Yes they can, but they're not recreating the actual taste experience.
>
[JONATHAN]
That requires the additional step of someone popping it into his mouth!
Magnus, are you really saying that they can create the "object" of the
taste experience, but not the "subject":-)
!!!????!???. In SOM terms that's exactly what you are saying and that's
the correct SOM interpretation.
[snip]
>>>>>
I still don't understand what this has to do with Magnus's topographical
probems.
..back to the current dialogue
JONATHAN
>> But it is not obvious that societies organise into "intellect". To
>> propose that requires all sorts of justifications and
>> word games.
>
MAGNUS
>Patterns doesn't organize themselves into higher levels. They are just
>providing the foundation for higher levels. There's a difference.
Organize THEMSELVES? Why the extra word Magnus? I might have said
"become organized", but Magnus is displaying an obsession with who DOES
the organizing, and WHOM is the object of that organization. What sort
of metaphysics needs that distinction Magnus?
JONATHAN
>> [intellect] seems to be off to the side -
>> looking across. It's an abstraction of the [other] 3 levels
>> [that] 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?
No, I started with Pirsig's 4 levels stacked along ONE-dimension, and I
have now moved Intellect along a SECOND sideways dimension. Had this
been a discussion among the followers of Magnus Berg, perhaps his
objection might be valid.
[more multidimensional topology snipped]
>> 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???
>
Intellect is not directly accessible via the 5 senses, the normal
definition of empiricism (Pirsig's comments in Chapter 8 of Lila
notwithstanding).
>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.
>
But all patterns are intellectualizations. If you read my previous post
more carefully, you will see that I can regard your words as Social
pattern - which allow us to SHARE (social word) a COMMON (social word)
world-view.
MAGNUS
>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.
>
Logical positivism?
MARY just came in with:-
<<<
Instead of a 3 and 1 or 2 and 2 split I would go with a 1 and 3; the
inorganic level being the only one that is actually "matter". I mean
isn't
the biological level merely an elaboration on inorganic "matter"?
>>>
This is what I would call logical positivism, the view that the
inorganic level is REAL reality, and all the rest is illusion.
My own view is that it is all patterns/intellectuallization which means
ALL MIND to a mystic and ALL MATTER to a materialist.
MARY:-
<<<
What did Pirsig mean when he said in Chapter 12, "Mind is contained in
static inorganic patterns. Matter is contained in static intellectual
patterns"? Was this a typo? Am I missing something important here?
>>>
Since Pirsig tries to avoid falling into either myticism or materialism,
it doesn't really matter. It seems to me that Pirsig deliberately
"interchanged" things here to indicate the interpenetration between Mind
and Matter.
JONATHAN
>
>> Yet, without [intellect],
>> the whole 3-tier cake no longer has any structure. It is the
structuring
>> itself which IS intellect/intellectualisation.
>
MAGNUS
>Yes, but it's nonetheless dependent on it. It's not some free floating
>realm of its own.
I never said "free floating". An abstraction is always dependent on the
source of the abstraction.
JONATHAN
>> So folks, is my sacrilege to be called SOM, MOM or just plain
rubbish?
>
MAGNUS
>Hmm.. tough one :)
Thanks Magnus. I'll remember that one with the "iron on the toe";-)
>
>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.
Correction. Diana's exact words were:-
"*I* [my emphasis] keep getting into circles of reasoning that never
reach a conclusion."
Magnus changed this to "*you* keep getting into circles ..."
Does this reflect a lack of modesty? Probably, since Magnus implies that
it is *he* who has the "correct view of the levels".
I agree with Diana that *we* (at least Diana and myself) tend to reason
in circles until we are shaken out of it by "pattern breakers". That to
me is the whole point of this discussion group. Otherwise, I could
figure it out all on my own!
Have a nice day all.
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