Hi Bodvar and Squad,
Bodvar, with your usual keen perception you've zeroed in on the post of mine
that makes the least sense! I'm glad you're calling me on this one -
somebody needs to! Let me see if I can comment coherently on your response.
<grin>
Mary Wittler wrote on Tue, 8 Dec 1998
> Hi Guys,
Bo:
Hi Mary and Lilacs
I was most touched by your opening words - optimistic but with a
sombre undertone. You'll be okay. I know!
Thanks. I know too.
> 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"?
Bo:
The meaning of:... "a 3 and 1 or 2 and 2 split"... eludes me.
This is in reference to Jonathan's 12/7/98 post which read in part:
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. [snip]
Jonathan's idea was to reduce the levels from 4 to 3, omitting the
intellectual all together. I couldn't subscribe to that. I was merely
pointing out (in an admittedly unclear way) that it would be easier for me
to go along with a split that separated out the inorganic level from the
other 3 rather than removing the intellectual level all together. I
probably shouldn't have said it, however, because I don't actually subscribe
to the notion of messing with the levels in any way at all!
Bo:
Regarding "matter", it may look as if the physical universe is the
overwhelming part, but in a MOQ context it is merely one static
level.
Agreed.
Bo:
I noticed that you earlier on embraced Ken's "universal and
human" quality, but this distinction is foreign to the MOQ. There is
only the DQ-SQ split - the latter divided in the famous four latches.
This is a tough one. At the risk of offending anyone (which is absolutely
NOT my purpose), I'd say that the whole idea of "Universal Quality" that
Daddy and I have discussed arose out of the feeling that the Squad was
drifting away from Pirsig's views (of which humanity is only one small,
insignificant part) and beginning to anthropomorphize the whole metaphysics.
The idea of Universal Quality is in no way different from Dynamic Quality
(at least not to me), but is merely a device of language to remind us of
what we are really talking about. "Human quality" is really only another
name for static intellectual quality. The concern was that the squad was
beginning to confuse static intellectual quality with Dynamic Quality. I
don't want to see us chip away at Dynamic Quality. It's "universal", that's
all I meant, and yes, I agree completely that there is no distinction
present in the MoQ. We are on the same wavelength here.
> The big idea here for me is what Pirsig calls Value Evolution (Chapter
11).
> Combine this with his idea that a dynamic advance MUST find a static latch
> for stability. When looked at this way I see that all 4 levels really are
> static! Logic is a STATIC LATCH!
Bo:
It sure is if you mean Q-Intellect !
I'm not completely sure I know what is meant by Q-Intellect, but I do think
logic resides in the intellectual level.
> We generate ideas all the time. But if those ideas can't withstand the
> scrutiny of logic (or meet a need at one of the other lower levels even
> though they may be illogical) then that idea will FAIL as a dynamic
advance.
> That idea will be unable to find a static latch to "protect itself from
> degeneration". That idea will not result in a ratcheting up to the next
> level of Value Evolution. That's how Value Evolution works! It is a
> progressive ratcheting up from one static latch to the next; and logic or
> mind or intellect (these words are synonymous) is the mechanism that
> statically determines if that idea will push us to the next level or not.
> Now mind you that next level is STILL a static level, but the ability to
> generate ideas is the Dynamic Quality propelling that forward momentum.
Bo:
Here I am a little bewildered. Do you speak of Intellect as a the
mechanism generating ALL static levels? If so it is not MOQ as I see
it. Dynamic Quality is the motivating "force" ...always , but if you
mean that a possible new level above Q-Intellect will have to grow
out of Q-Intellect. Yes!
I'm bewildered too and it shows here. I'm having a very hard time with
understanding Dynamic Quality. I'm told I'm not supposed to be able to
understand it, but I can't keep from trying. Understanding is a static
intellectual activity. If we understand something we've applied a static
intellectual latch to it. But DQ resists all attempts at static latching,
so I'm stuck. For me, an "idea" is a useful analogy for Dynamic Quality.
I'll try to explain.
In chapter 11 of "Lila", Pirsig builds up this wonderful explanation of
biological evolution. As you know, he starts from the subatomic "level"
(his word) and explains the origin of life and the development of higher and
higher biological forms. He says it all began with the desire (need a
better word here) of weak dynamic forces at the subatomic level to overcome
huge static inorganic forces at a superatomic level. His explanation of the
exploitation of the carbon atom for this purpose is beautiful. And at every
static level this kind of exploitation is evident. Well if the weak
dynamic forces wanted evolution then they must have had the "idea" before
the desire. From that thought, I extrapolated my concept of the "idea" into
the Dynamic Quality evident at all the static levels. This concept of
Dynamic Quality as the force of "ideas" turns DQ into something that I can
statically understand. Dynamic Quality now becomes the the force of the
"idea".
The idea concept was reinforced for me by considering where ideas come from
at the intellectual level. At first I believed it was possible to have a
completely original idea in the static intellect. But if that were true,
then the static intellectual level is not static anymore. It would have to
be redefined as Dynamic Quality itself. I think now all intellectual ideas
have precursors in what we have already experienced. That is, I now think
intellectual ideas arise (i.e. you feel that click in your head when things
suddenly seem to fit together) because you've just formed a new static
intellectual pattern out of a bunch of previously unpatterned experience.
And that's too bad, because that means I'll have to discard my "idea"
concept as an analogy for Dynamic Quality. I like thinking that my ideas
are brilliant, insightful, and completely original (i.e. Dynamic
Quality)<grin>, but unfortunately they're not. You know there's a lot of
truth to the old saying that there's "nothing new under the sun". Well, now
I understand the intellectual level a little better, but I still don't
understand Dynamic Quality. This bothers my static intellect, but I guess
I'll have to get used to it. ;)
> Pirsig also talks about a driving force or desire at the sub-atomic level
to
> snub the "natural" laws; i.e. thermodynamics, gravity, etc. He even
states
> that you could determine the level of Value Evolution by the degree to
which
> that item disobeyed these laws. So he is saying that life has attained a
> higher evolutionary value than inorganic matter because it is able to
stand
> up and walk around.
Bo:
Yes, the MOQ postulates a "weak dynamic force" because something
is obviously at work - it's self-evident. All right, the present Big
Bang model is quite a "weak" manifestation, but I guess that theory
will only last a few decades and a new one will replace it. When
P. talks about snubbing natural laws it is about the Biological
level. Life "pointing its nose" at death.
I would expand that interpretation to the inorganic level too, considering
Pirsig's explanation of how subatomic particles exploited the carbon atom.
> Ok, this leads me to think that the ability to generate
> ideas is the driving DYNAMIC force at the intellectual level.
Bo:
That "ability" is the STATIC Intellectual level itself. You must not
give ideas any godlike status, in 99,9 out of hundred cases they are
as trite and predictable as (whose mother was it?) breakfast table
talk. :-). But ...mind you ....Dynamic Quality works on overcoming
the statics of Q-Intellect as well, so sooner or later a really wild
idea will emerge (IMO the Quality idea is such
an event) and latch.
Thanks for pointing this out. It is because of your explanation here that I
was able to reorganize my thoughts written above in this post.
> 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?
Bo:
No typo at all. He was merely paraphrasing the two impossible views
of SOM: (1) the materialist: " mind is contained by (out of) matter".
(2) the idealist: matter is contained by (out of) mind. These two
schools are reconciliated by the MOQ which says that the paradox
exist because SOM has overlooked the two static "dimensions" Biology
and Society.
You've clarified things for me once again.
> "Mental patterns do not originate out of inorganic nature. They originate
> out of society, which originates out of biology, which originates out of
> inorganic nature." This says to me that logic (a mental pattern)
originated
> out of society.
Bo:
Exactly!
Would we be in agreement that there are different levels of society? That
is, levels in the customary sense (I'm not trying to add a new static level
here). Would you agree that an ant colony type society didn't require an
intellectual level to develop; that that type of society arose from the
biological level; but higher level societies like our current one required
intellect before they could flower? A society of the type we have today
couldn't, in my view, have arisen without intellect, but also couldn't have
arisen without the static latching from lower level type societies too.
So, yes societies existed first, but they were not advanced societies. From
these lower level biologically inspired societies intellect was born, which
in turn enabled the creation of higher level societies like ours.
> A biological pattern cannot form the logic necessary to
> evaluate its ideas. It can only react to them.
Bo:
Hmm,"ideas" at the Biological level? Look. I have formulated a
list of how each level reacts/evaluates its own reality
(remember Value is reality):
INTERACTION (Inorganic) - SENSATION (Biology) - EMOTION (Social) -
REASON (Intellect).
According to it Biology only senses. This my list is not official
MOQ, but I find it extremely useful as it simplifies the levels.
Yes it does once you have read enough Pirsig ;)
> Do you think inorganic matter has an Idea when it uses the carbon chain to
subvert
> the law of gravity? (Chapter 11).
Bo:
I understand perfectly what you want the "idea" term to imply, but
again, Inorganic matter has no "ideas" in the Intellectual sense, it
only INTERACTS! Introducing ideas/mind is letting subject/object
metaphysics in through the back dor. It was DQ that grabbed the
carbon for subverting the law of gravity - creating the Biological
level.
Well yes, but I still like the handy analogy ;)
> "Our intellectual description of nature is always culturally derived."
> First we used some logic to statically latch the idea of a society or
> culture; and only then were we able to take the next step and use that
same
> static logic pattern to begin to describe nature for ourselves?
Bo:
I think Society in the most basic "emotional" sense can do fine
without logic or "reason", but the social tool called "language"
was grabbed by DQ to subvert the Social laws: it became the
"carbon" of Intellect.
We must be in agreement then about there being a difference between
societies that are strictly derived from biology and those that are derived
from biology + intellect.
> Pirsig postulates the "Myth of Independence". "The intellectual level of
> patterns, in the historic process of freeing itself from its parent social
> level, namely the church, has tended to invent a myth of independence from
> the social level for its own benefit. Science and reason, this myth goes,
> come only from the objective world, never from the social world. The
world
> of objects imposes itself upon the mind with no social mediation
whatsoever.
> ...it isn't so." No question here. We needed that social level to exist
> before we could become capable of using logic to evaluate the natural
world.
Bo:
This is my little "thought experiment" - facetious perhaps -
but bear with me. All static levels have had their period of
"independence". For billions of years Matter was all there was and if
you could - ahem - speak to an Inorganic "representative" it would
say that it was all of reality. Later when Life had emerged a
"representative" would claim it was the epitome of existence. When
organisms had established social cooperation such a representative
would maintain that it was the fulfilment of destiny. Nowadays
Intellect claims that it is the summit of reality, independent of
the enormous body beneath it....and vehemently rejecting the
possibility of a higher vista.
Fun to speculate about. The next level will have to be incomprehensible to
the intellect I guess.
Mary
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