BO ANSWERS ROGER; A TASK THAT PROVED TO BE TOUGH. IT WILL EITHER
BRING ACROSS (MY) UNDERSTANDING OF THE MOQ OR CAUSE UTTER
FRUSTRATION?
Hi Roger and group.
In your message of 18 Dec you directed this question to me.
> TO BODVAR:
> You say that Q-intellect is subject/object logic.
> I say that the way to define or evaluate the levels is to look at their value
> forces or directions rather than by focusing on static examples. (Glove may be
> similar to this too?) For example, the Biological level is defined by the
> values of survival, consumption and replication, NOT by DNA, pandas or
> rainforests. The latter are emergent phenomena of the former underlying
> values.
> Bo, 1) How would you define the value forces or direction of S/O logic, and
> are they the same as Q-intellect?
> 2) Do you agree or disagree with my statement?
I did initially wince at the notion of 'value forces' in contrast to
'static examples' (or 'underlaying values vs emergent phenomena) and
started on a long-winded explanation from the first static
latch. I stressed that there is no matter in contrast to forces or
laws. If there was it would mean that the DQ-SQ split continued into
the static patterns and that would sound very much like
subject-objectivism in a quality guise. It was easy to defend
this view regarding the Inorganic and it also went well into the
Biological realm too; a living organism is inorganic values overlaid
by biological ones. Survival, consumption and replication is.....well
I got away with the "other half of the coin" simile. But at the
Social level it got difficult not to differentiate between what you
call 'value forces' and 'static examples' and at the Intellect I got
myself into a mess.
On Sunday I took a trip to my favourite thinking place: a little cafe
near the world's strongest tidal current across the fjord from here;
in the summer crowded, now pleasantly quiet and it dawned on me (for
the nth time) that it's no use trying to make a smooth transition.
The MOQ MUST come across strong; all or nothing at all. The way
you formulated these question, existence is seen from Q-Intellect and
Its first and foremost value is to see divisions: underlying vs
emergent, forces vs substance, 'elan vital' vs dead matter,
socializing instinct vs societies...etc: a cornucopia of such
dichotomies all carrying the SO caste mark.
As I see it the picture is as follows: The Inorganic level "knows" no
division, nor does the Biological or the Social, but the most
advanced tool for perpetuating the common myth - language - triggered
a new Q step. With Q-intellect division appeared: not as a
by-product, no, the Intellectual level knows nothing BUT splitting,
and as long as it reigned unchallenged it was taken for granted that
reality had a "fault" down its middle. This we call SOM, and in a
SOM context - dependent upon if you were an idealist or a materialist
- evolution was seen either as "matter becoming aware of itself" or
just a complexification of a senseless process.
So, Roger, this is my answer. It may sound like a MOQ counterpart
of quantum physics' "strong interpretaion", but all attempts to
more reasonable views runs into difficulties. But what I am most -
ahem - proud of is that it gives us back subjects and objects. When
we started out it was a witch-hunt for SOM, but it's impossible, it
can't be gotten rid of. However, reduced to Q-Intellect it is
"swallowed" by the MOQ. It's a high value, but still a mere static
level.
Allow me a rounding off. It's impossible to see a structure from
within. To view Q-intellect from the outside requires a new static
point of view: the Quality idea is Intellect's most advanced "tool"
slowly turning against it's master. What this will develop into I
have no idea, but it is something big. Pirsig said in the letter to
Diana (Newsletters):
> I have mined probably less than one per cent of
> what is there. The best readers will pay minimal
> attention to what I have found and maximal
> attention to what I have missed. That's where
> the excitement is.
Pirsig did not see all the ramifications of his vision - of course
he didn't - and there will perhaps be many offshoots of his
idea; Fintan's MoM, various other revisions/additions, my above
SOLAQI are the first examples of such. Fintan, in his usual modest
style, declared his to be a complete new metaphysics, but it is
merely a reshuffling of the static configuration so it is still
MOQ-founded. My idea is conservative regarding number and ranking of
the levels, but most radical regarding Intellect.
Too long as usual
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 - 16:02:46 BST