From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Jun 20 2005 - 15:49:25 BST
Mike and interested parties.
On 17 June Michael Hamilton wrote:
> MH replies to Bo:
> I think the examples you give _must_ fall into the intellectual
> category. Where else can they fit? but
Again this residue from SOM; A mind or thinking intellect that
every utterance - written or verbal - about existence must fall
into. No, mythologies weren't "primitive intellect" but social value
patterns.
> Can they possibly be social, like language? No.
> The Bible _uses_ language, but for a higher purpose than
> mere communication. It attempts to present a picture of some kind of
> truth.
I doubt if the Old Testament has any reference to "truth", but in
Christianity this newfangled Greek (intellectual) concept appears.
Your writings demonstrate intellect (as SOM) firm grip, you look
back through its glasses and see intellect's imprint all the way
down through the social level.
> The examples you give are of "mythos" - the small shrub from
> which grows the enormous tree of "logos", as described by Pirsig in
> ZMM. Primitive the mythos may be, but it still is an attempt _by_
> society to understand reality.
What constituted reality for tens of thousands of years "a small
shrub"? No way! And "an attempt by society to understand" Again
you reveal intellect's grip. Science understands, while myths were
about tradition. When the tribe elder pointed to lights in the sky
and told about what deities they were, there was no skeptic that
said: "Is this objectively true or just some subjective nonsense?"
> I'm not saying that the Bible and the
> Koran had no social component - they clearly did (the Ten Commandments
> being a good example), but in as much as they attempt to describe
> reality, they are mythos and primitive intellect.
Intellect is out of society, but not that mythos directly became
logos, rather as said in ZMM: " ...which permitted them to regard
the old Greek mythos, not as revealed truth, but as imaginative
creations of art. This consciousness, which had never existed
anywhere before in the world ...etc."
> MH replies to Bo:
> I think this is too simplistic by far. Classic (I'm fairly sure that's
> what you meant to write instead of "Static"?)
Of course, thanks!
> corresponds to
> intellect, sure. But Romantic quality with social quality? Do John and
> Sylvia bear much similarity to Rigel and the Victorians described in
> Lila? I think not. In ZMM Pirsig says that Romantic quality has to do
> with "surface appeal", which I would say has something to do with
> Dynamic Quality, or at least with non-intellectual value in general.
> The Classic/Romantic split is about intellect vs non-intellect, not
> simply intellect vs society.
The Romantic/Classic divide did not become the metaphysical
fundament for the final MOQ, but this passage:
(ZMM Corgi Paperback p. 366) "Parmenides made it
clear for the first time that the Immortal Principle; The
One, Truth, Good, is separate from appearance and
opinion, and its effect upon subsequent history cannot be
overstated. It's here that classic [intellectual] mind, for the
first time, took leave of its romantic [social] origins and
said: 'The Good and the True are not necessarily the
same' and goes its separate ways. Anaxagoras and
Parmenides had a listener named Socrates who carried
their ideas into full fruition". (my brackets)
...shows that this was (what became) intellect's emergence from
(what became) society.
> MH nit-picks:
> Yes, Phaedrus realised that the dialectical subject/object dilemma had
> to be made subordinate to Quality. But! He arrived at this conclusion
> by "reasonable" means, don't you think?
Yes, he was very much a SOMist - a most zealous one - and
pursued its premises to the extreme and beyond. So definitely
MOQ is from SOM or "out of intellect"
> Value-centric reason, as
> outlined in ZMM and refined in Lila as the MOQ, can termed an
> "expanded" form of reason, because it is capable of everything reason
> was previously capable of _and more_.
This an intellectual level that can be reformed, expanded or
whatever, but it is static and can no more be improved than the
inorganic level can. All levels went in their turn from simplicity to
complexity and the most complex patterns became the
springboard to the next, but the basic value is the same and
intellect is no exception.
> An attempt at reconciliation, though: the four static levels of
> evolution were devised by Pirsig in an attempt to divide static
> quality in such a way that it encompasses _everything_ (except value
> itself), as a more holistic division than "me-in-here" /
> "that-out-there". Like any other hierarchy, it's a pragmatic division
> chosen for its intellectual value.
"Chosen for it's intellectual value" The intellectual level is part of
the static hierarchy and its value is definitely not behind the
MOQ. It was subject/object's logic collapsing that spawned
Phaedrus' Quality insight. The intellectual level is of value to the
MOQ, but MOQ is of no value to intellect ....to the contrary, all
protests against the SOL interpretation is intellect's protest to
being made into a sub-set of a greater system.
> So, if you can argue that the SOL
> definition of the four levels can still "catch" all static patterns,
> from the MOQ to Marxism to the various ways of classifying motorcycle
> components to anthropology to astrology, then SOL is as "true" as it
> could possibly be.
"From the MOQ to Marxism". What an odd couple ;-)
The SOL is the MOQ and has the same definition of the levels
(even of intellect if dictionaries are heeded) and of course
"catches" everything except itself. In that respect I differ from
Pirsig. A system has no place within itself for itself.
> However, at this stage I still want to ask you: if
> intellectual quality is a subspecies contained by the MOQ, what kind
> of a static pattern is the hierarchy that constitutes the MOQ, i.e.
> the hierarchy containing dynamic quality and the four levels of static
> quality?
The MOQ constitutes a Quality Reality that of course have no
static "abode". See the posts for you and Matt.
Yours
Bo
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 : Mon Jun 20 2005 - 16:22:42 BST