BO HAS IT OUT WITH GLOVE, POSSIBLY WITH JONATHAN TOO, TOUCHES
UPON MARY AND ROGER .
"glove" wrote on Mon, 21 Dec 1998
> but there is static and Dynamic Quality, the Quality Event. that is where
> forces of value arise, flourish and pass away. that is our reality, or
> rather our conception of reality. please remember i am not talking about any
> observable force as we know it in the universe when i talk about Force of
> Value. since it is Dynamic in nature we are unaware of its presence
> directly. i am in no way attempting to define Dynamic Quality but i am
> recognizing what it does as creative and discreative force in the universe.
Hi Glove
Yes there is a DQ-SQ split, but is there a dynamic component to the
static part? I found that it opened a Pandora Box of sub-divisions,
that ....as said:
>> sound very much like
>> subject-objectivism in a quality guise.
> Value forces, or force of value, is very simply put, creation and
> discreation. the Dynamic Quality/static quality split you speak of does not,
> cannot exist in a way we can conceive of. to do so is a fallacy, in my
> opinion, and will lead nowhere. all that we can conceptualize is static
> quality patterns of value. underlying those patterns are forces of value
> which are not only creating the patterns of value, but also substaining them
> temporally by means of static latching, in certain high value situations,
> and then discreating them.
All right, in a mystical sense it is, and it's up to you to emphasize
this aspect, but I prefer the explanation that I gave to Roger: It's
Q-intellect - in retrospect - that DEMANDS these divisions.
> social level patterns of value are easy to recognize, for they are all
> around us and indeed make us who we are. the intellect patterns of value
> arise from the social patterns of value but they are opposed to the
> restrictive nature of those social patterns. and strive to break free. in
> doing so these intellect patterns of value are no longer recognizable as
> creative patterns, but discreative intellect patterns opposed to the
> creative patterns of the social level. and this is why we assign no value to
> them as a rule, until they have become social patterns of value by means of
> agreement. the intellect patterns of value are abstractions (in Jonathans
> words), de-latched social patterns of value seeking Dynamic freedom.
No, I don't like this sanctification of the Q-social level (I'll
have to stress the "Q" because I feel that not only have you
distorted the Intellect, but are in the process of problematizing the
Social one). Nor do I buy the chicken-egg interaction between SoPoV
and IntPoV that you outlined in that other message of 21 Dec.
(remember the limit ;-)).
>> yet for the social level to exist, we must first conceive of it
>> via the intellect and turn it into a Quality Event...etc
It's Jonathan's "intellect the seed, society the soil" all over
again. His intellect as "thinking itself" or your - "as awareness or
consciousness" wrecks havoc if brought into the Q versions
un-transformed. The most simple characterization of Q-society is the
value of the whole at the cost of the part, so it starts lower down
the Q-biology than humankind. A baboon tribe is a stricter society
than anything human, but no Q-intellect is needed for them to
understand social signals. That was the the case of the proto-humans,
the Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons and is probably the case to-day in
isolated tribes if there are any left. If this sounds slanderous or
degrading, it's because you don't understood the Q version of those
two concepts. Signals and signal interpretation is neural complexity
- tentatively "intelligence" - another name for Biology. The most
simple organisms signal out- and inwardly and the greater the
complexity the more subtle the signals, up to the formidable
capacity of the human brain. But Cro-Magnon had brains the size of
ours, but hadn't entered the Q-intellect.
> social level patterns of value are easy to recognize, for they are all
> around us and indeed make us who we are
Yes, the Social level is a major part of existence, but I claim that
Intellect's sway is even stronger. It has even reorganized
our (Western) societies completely. See, that's the idea: the upper
level reorganizes the lower. A piece of our bodies is Inorganic
matter heavily moulded by Biology; a social being is Biology
moulded by Society.
Yes, Intellect is out of Society, but another tenet of the MOQ is
that an upper level opposes its parent level. If your deliberations
here were valid an idea would never be anti-Social, it is as saying
that for an organism to become alive it would have to be
Inorganically sanctioned, that never happens. But - again - it's your
society notion that is askew.You must not look upon the US, Israel or
Norway as expressions of Social value, they are heavily
Intellectual-value transformed. Q-society is something very basic:
duty, honor, discipline, obedience (at the human level); "Obedience"
for all social creatures.
You are right: acceptance from more than one person is necessary for
an idea to be recognized, but the idea might go strongly against
Social value all the same. The death penalty is good Social value,
but Intellect opposes it vehemently.
Phew, Glove, you have a gift of complicating matters. Pirsig said the
Quality idea would be understood by a small child, but some of you
paragraphs reminds me of Kluckhohn's "value project" (LILA p 63)
"With that lead balloon for a vehicle there was no way......." ;-)
But you are a pleasure to have as an opponent and I look forward to
another year in your company.
Bodvar
PS. From today's post (I download only once a day, this puts
me a little behind but is necessary) I see that Mary also has a
discussion with Glove and I agree totally with her formulations
particularly on Q-intellect.
I also see Roger's splendid defence for the "value force" as
different from "patterns". I have no objections to his documentation
or the notion of such a distinction, but - as said - it easily
evokes "substance governed by laws" and that is not what Pirsig
wanted to say. But - as said - if you want to say anything at all,
Intellect DEMANDS such distinctions. I think I avoided that
trap by looking upon it as Intellect's retro-peering down upon the
other levels coloring it all in its S-O hue.
Yours
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