Hi Roger, Glove, Mary, Bodvar and other LilaQs,
Roger [22 Dec]:
<<<2) Because a given pattern isn't "an independent primary reality".
It is a term for collections of patterns. >>>
ALL patterns are collections of sub-patterns. We could call them data
sets.
I would say that the "complete" picture of reality should include all
possible data from all possible viewpoints.
An individual pattern is born (Q-event) by SELECTION and REJECTION of
data. It has to be - otherwise there'd be no knowing anything from
anything else. The pattern is a summary/abstract of the complete
picture, a MAP to sort out the useful from the non-useful data.
To BODVAR:
This sorting out of useful from non-useful data at the Q-event is where
we see the first possibility for a subject-object definition. Certain
data become the definition of the OBJECT. Any data
not-part of that definition are not objective. The "subjective" data are
those which relate to existence of the object pattern, but are not part
of its definition.
The SO division is so fundamental in pattern perception that it
dominates metaphysical thought. Usually we perceive object patterns so
fast (by rote) that we forget that we could have perceived a different
pattern by filtering the data differently.
Mary [22 Dec] :-
>Does the social level need abstraction? Couldn't it get
>along perfectly well without it? Does the social level have the
capability
>of using abstractions to increase its own value? In other words, is
the
>value of abstraction a value that falls within the domain of values
which
>define the social level. If not, then abstraction must fall within a
>different static level of value. A different set of "value
parameters".
>How do you see this Jonathan?
You can guess my answer from what I wrote above. ALL patterns are
abstractions. They summarise some aspect of reality, but never reproduce
reality in full. Society itself is a collection of abstractions.
BODVAR [23 Dec]:
<<<His [Jonathan's] intellect as "thinking itself" or your - "as
awareness or
consciousness" wrecks havoc if brought into the Q versions
un-transformed.>>>
Bodvar, I now see that it is imperative for someone to properly define
Intellect. My own quasi-definitions are for Intellect as a NON-level.
Pirsig didn't provide a definition for the Intellectual Level and I
regard his examples as social values.
The only thing approaching an Int-level definition is your own SOLAQI
which is why my comments on subject-object division are addressed to
you.
GLOVE (to Mary) [22 Dec]:
<<<please define subject object logic and tell me why it is
different from other types of thinking, and indeed what the other types
of thinking are.>>>
I would say that you are talking about dialectics, where patterns are
TESTED and compared (for consistency). This logic doesn't tell you WHICH
patterns to consider, nor how to modify them to overcome contradictions.
What it does do is test the modifications once they are defined. Anyone
can be a critic and knock something down for inconsistency, but it takes
inspiration and imagination to provide a new model.
Seasonal greetings to all ...
Jonathan
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