From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Tue Oct 12 2004 - 19:42:57 BST
Scott, Steve, all,
Scott, thanks for taking the time to summarize your thoughts. A few
of my own thoughts interspersed below. I haven't been following this
thread as closely as I might have, so feel free to direct me to other
posts if I'm covering old ground.
On 12 Oct 2004 at 7:46, Scott Roberts wrote:
The MOQ considers intellect to be the fourth level of SQ, and in
later notes, Pirsig defines intellect as the manipulation of
abstract symbols. Further, the self is defined as inorganic,
biological, social, and intellectual SQ capable of responding to DQ.
Now, what is DQ? The MOQ says it should be undefined, but it seems to
me one can say a couple of things about it. One is that it is
creativity, that it drives evolution -- it, and only it leaves new SQ
behind. The other is that it is one, that is, there is not a DQ for
the inorganic level, another for the biological, not one for Earth,
and another for Mars, and so on. Now this may sound like I am
reifying DQ, making it sound too much like God,
msh says:
This sounds right right, but the problem with using the word "God" in
any discussion is all the baggage that goes along with it:
personality, plan, a special loving (or vengeful) interest in human
affairs. It's why I'd avoid that particular term. Otherwise, I have
no problem with the reification of Quality as the ontological Source.
scott:
but as I see it that is already implied in defining the self as
capable of responding to DQ, rather being itself DQ and SQ. And it
seems to deny creativity to the self, and that is what I object to.
msh says:
I'm not sure how DQ denies creativity to the self. I think of it as
a poet's Muse. It's the connection with DQ that results in
individual creativity.
scott:
A difference between the intellectual level and the other levels is
that I can only observe the SQ of the other levels, but I can make SQ
on the intellectual level. To some extent I have control of the SQ
that my mind churns out. Obviously not complete control, in that a
great deal of time my mind seems to be running on automatic. But I
can be more or less mindful, which pretty much means being more or
less in control. These words that I am typing out are new SQ. Not
earth-shaking, to be sure, like "e=mc^2", but new nevertheless, and
not completely new, since I am mostly just putting old ideas in new
words. Nevertheless, what I type could be radically new SQ, a new
mathematical proof, a new philosophy, a new poem, a new scientific
hypothesis.
msh says:
This sounds right. But the following sounds insufficient...
scott:
Thus, as I see it, when we are being creative, we are DQ. And, since
we can examine and change our own SQ (our beliefs and
desires). we are self-evolving.
msh says:
But DQ is more than Dynamic (creative) it is also Quality, the
maximum Good. The moral element seems to be missing here. Being
creative is not sufficient; we must be moral in our creativity,
which, I believe, usually means abandoning our SQ beliefs and
desires.
scott:
Now the question is, is what I am saying just a different way of
saying that I am responding to DQ. Am I just introducing confusion to
make a point that has no great significance. Well, obviously I don't
think so. The reason I don't think so is that if we ignore our own
creativity we are ignoring our ability to see DQ and SQ actually
creating.
msh says:
I don't see how recognizing the source of our creativity is the same
as ignoring it. Or are you suggesting that human beings are a
special bundle of SQ patterns that have somehow become their own
source of creativity? This would certainly pave the way toward
assigning to humanity a special place in the chain of being, and
you'd be well on your way to a kind of Objectivism. I hope that's
not your intention.
scott:
Our own minds are creating and letting us view creation. We
have got the basic MOQ principle in microcosm right here in our
minds.
msh says:
Except that, again, the moral element is missing. Eichmann was
creative.
scott:
However, the microcosmic MOQ of the self only applies to the
intellectual level (I can only create intellectual SQ). So a question
may be raised on whether it has anything to say about how the MOQ
works on the other levels. I say that it does, for a couple of
reasons. The first is that SQ consists of static patterns of value,
and the difference between a pattern and a thing or event that
instantiates the pattern is the old philosophical distinction between
universals and particulars, and that is what intellect works with.
This means that one needs to add particulars to the MOQ.
msh says:
Whoops. Well, ok, now you're talking about an entirely different
metaphysics: Platonism, with the Forms existing eternally and
perfectly apart form their temporal and earthly approximations. You
know, with God the cookie-cutter sort of spitting out individual
horses, wheels, carts. It's hard to see how the MOQ's powerful
evolutionary ideas would come into play.
So, from this point on, with your discussion of Universals and
Particulars, and Peirce's Triads, I think we're away from the MOQ.
But I'll inject a few comments and questions to see if I can lend a
MOQish shape to what you're saying, for my own sake.
scott:
That can be done by using Peirce's triads. For Peirce, any event is a
sign-event, by which he means there is a particular, a universal
which that particular instantiates, and an interpretant, which
recognizes the universal that the particular instantiates. Unless all
three are present there is no meaning, no value.
msh says:
So all three take on the ontological primacy of QUALITY (value) in
the MOQ? There's a triad where once there was a monad?
scott:
Now to reconcile this with the MOQ's position that value precedes any
differentiation, one also observes that without value, there is no
triad. That is, this is consistent with saying that value creates the
triad.
msh says:
So, here, the first split is three ways, not two? So the triad is,
after all, secondary to the monad?
scott:
In other words, creation is differentiation, the setting of
limits, which limits are SQ. DQ breaks up old limits and sets new
limits. That's Intellect.
msh says:
So, in this metaphysics, rather than emerging from DQ, Intellect IS
DQ?
scott:
SOM assumes that there is a subject that appreciates an object. I am
only assuming appreciation, and that it is better to think of it, as
Pirsig puts it, as between the subject and the object, or among the
nodes of the Peircean triad. The point of bringing it up is that to
get appreciation, *some* differentiating is necessary, however we
might describe it.
msh says:
So, in MOQish terms, "appreciation" is what? Appreciation can't be
Quality (Value), because Quality comes BEFORE the S/O split, not
between them. So are you talking about the pre-intellectualized
experience of Quality? What I think of as DQ?
>steve said:
> To me, your way sounds the same as SOM.
scott:
That's because you have not grasped the idea that, while we
differentiate (e.g., into subjects and objects, or into triads) to
understand reality, Quality differentiates to create reality.
Intellect, like Quality, precedes any particular differentiation.
msh says:
But this can only mean that Intellect and Quality are the same. Is
that what you're saying?
>steve asked:
> Can you explain where the dq/sq cut fits in with your triad?
scott:
No, because DQ seems to me to be used in two different ways (which I
want to examine in a separate thread), as the creation of new SQ, and
as the leading edge of experience. Is there DQ when I am running on
automatic? I accept that metaphysically the DQ/SQ split is of utmost
importance, since that is the basis of morality.
msh says:
Yes, I see an ambiguity in the way "DQ" is used. Sometimes it's an
event; sometimes it's a driving force. But maybe the "spark" of
individual creativity is the event, and the "sweat" of creativity
stems from the drive. The difference between the inspiration and
completion of a poem.
And I'm glad to see you're finally bringing morality into the
discussion.
Later,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
-- InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983 Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com "Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is everything." -- Henri Poincare' MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 12 2004 - 19:58:46 BST