BO HAS IT OUT WITH GLOVE, POSSIBLY WITH JONATHAN TOO, TOUCHES
UPON MARY AND ROGER .
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.
Glove:
in approaching this problem, i have tried to keep certain assumptions in
mind. at the beginning of chapter 12, Pirsig describes the Metaphysics of
Quality in a nutshell, and these basic building blocks must not contradict
each other in any other fashion than a sychronized polarity to each other as
the four static levels co-mingle with Dynamic Quality in a complex
self-regenerating dance.
to further understand this metaphoric map of the Metaphysics of Quality i
felt it was of value to explore the underlying Forces of Value working in
each level.
and proceeded from there to see if what i envisioned could even be possible
in the first place, and then finding that yes, it was possible, i proceeded
a little further, testing the waters as i went. a review of "The Origin of
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" turned into a paper on
Force of Value in the Metaphysics of Quality, quite by accident mind you. it
is inadequate. but it is a start perhaps.
mystical sense! how can you say that! look around you! everything is in a
flux of activity, us included, continally creating and discreating itself.
but what is it that is "doing" the whatever it is that we observe happening
around us? tell me! its not just my "Q-intellect" creating all this...no no
no, that is pure subjectivism/objectivism and that is the direction you seem
to be going in assigning such high value to subject/object thinking as
placing it where you do, as the intellect.
in my opinion, to even speak of a Dynamic/static split in reality is to
misunderstand a basic tenent of the Metaphysics of Quality. this cannot be
stressed enough.
Bodvar:
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 ;-)).
Glove:
please dont crowd my creativity. you are yourself sanctifying the social
level here in the Lila Squad or the moq_discussion group or whatever it is
when you impose your restrictions on my, or anyones, creativity. i dont
purport to be a leader or a follower. i am only here with you all for a
short while and then i will be gone. i will continue to post as i see fit
until then. throw me out if you dont like it, but please dont crowd me.
Bodvar:
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.
Glove:
actually this is a very good analogy, and Rupert Sheldrake makes use of the
same idea with his morphogenetic "germ". please remember i am not saying
that intellect is awareness. apparently there is a very subtle distinction
that is very easily overlooked. awareness must be the Quality Event. i have
tried to stress this in the past.
Bodvar:
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.
Glove:
first of all let me object to your use of Q-. i am really trying to see why
you value such a distinction and i have failed. isnt it a redundency? arent
we discussing the Metaphysics of Quality? why do we have to divide intellect
into Q-intellect and "regular" intellect? i cant see the value in it, try as
i might. i am sure you have explained it in the past but could you once
again? i just dont understand.
that off my chest, let me continue. nothing is slanderous or degrading as
long as it is moving towards Dynamic Quality. i do not know how cro-magnon
man "thought" but i cannot help but feel all species sense part of the
intellect level of awareness in some fashion peculiar to them. your
Q-intellect thinking seems to sanctify (to use your words) the idea that
human thought is the highest-value situation in the universe...a commonly
held belief among almost all humans. i disagree with this starting point and
instead i look all around me and find it is simply not so.
best wishes
glove
p.s.
how can i teach the Value of a warm furry purry kitty in my lap on a cold
winter evening to someone who has never experienced such a feeling? there is
no subject and no object...only a blending of all the fibers of being deep
in the pit of the stomach into the Now, the moment. it is said the Buddha
lives in the belly. but what does that mean?
now see what you have done Bodvar...you have opened up the dreaded mystic
closet again. :)
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