From: Paul Turner (pauljturner@yahoo.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jul 01 2003 - 11:43:39 BST
Hi Bo
> Don't you think that Cro-Magnon people thought about
> existence,
> theorised about origin and destiny ...besides
> hunting and reproducing
> themselves? And they were solidly within social
> reality.
Any thoughts about existence they were having are
intellectual patterns of value in the MOQ.
> > A mind thought of it and directed a body
> > to write it down
>
> A mind directed a body? See where we end up.
Okay, it has been my experience that ideas do not end
up in ink on paper without the socially learned
movement of an arm. Ultimately, that is an explanation
derived from undifferentiated experience based on some
assumptions.
> > in a socially learned symbolic
> > language. The ideas were propagated in society,
> > theatre, school, church, and recorded in
> scriptures,
> > tomes, tablets and books. The idea of me/not me
> that
> > appears to have dawned in ancient Greece is a
> hugely
> > successful way of differentiating experience which
> > seems to have exponentially advanced the intellect
> but
> > it is not synonymous with intellect.
>
> Me/not me is not the intellectual level - all
> organisms knows that
> difference (humans "know" it biologically when the
> immune system
> attacks an intruder) no, it is the capacity to ask
> what is (objectively)
> true as different from (subjective) opinion. Social
> focussed mankind
> (my Cro Magnons) did not ask for an "objective
> explanation" of
> observed phenomena. There were no sceptics who said
> "is it REALLY
> true this about gods and such"? The transition from
> the social- to the
> intellectual reality is splendidly described in ZMM.
Opinion and truth only become possibilities when it is
assumed that there is a fixed reality which can or
cannot be corresponded to. That is what Plato and many
since have intellectually argued for and many have
intellectually argued against. In the MOQ, experience
is reality and therefore truth is a high quality
explanation of experience known by the intellectual
harmony it produces.
Depending on what you are doing it is useful to
consider reality to be independent of you and
objective, at other times it is useful to consider
reality to be subjective. Experience, Dynamic Quality,
can support or undermine those assumptions.
> > the USA is
> > a hugely successful social pattern of value but is
> not
> > mistaken for social quality itself.
>
> The social patterns are almost invisible under the
> huge intellectual
> superstructure of ALL western countries. USA's
> success - sure, and
> that is no sarcasm.
I'm actually from the UK, but my point is that we
don't confuse one society for the MOQ social level,
why do that with S/O thinking and the intellect?
> > Bo said:
> > "but at least Scott sees that - in that case -
> > "....all static patterns are in some
> > sense "intellectual"". Which is good old SOM's
> > "everything is in the mind"
> > and bye to the MOQ."
>
> > Paul:
> > The MOQ 'description' of patterns of value is 'all
> in
> > the mind', it is an intellectual pattern of value
> > providing a high quality explanation of experience
> (to
> > me at least). The value which differentiated the
> > experience which the MOQ describes is not in the
> mind
> > or in society or in plants or animals or protons
> or
> > electrons, it is prior to all of those
> distinctions.
> > Pirsig spends page after page hammering this point
> > because he recognises that it is a cultural
> blindspot.
>
> SOM's dilemma is that everything is either mind or
> mind is some by-
> product. When complex enough biological grey matter
> spawns mind,
> awareness or consciousness. If this mind is
> transferred into the MOQ
> as intellect everything is intellectual.
Only the intellectual level is intellectual value. The
descriptions of the other levels are all intellectual
but the value in each level isn't. When we explain the
value, the explanation is intellectual.
Even DQ
> which Squonk puts so
> much faith in because DQ is part and parcel of the
> MOQ which
> allegedly is an intellectual pattern) This can't be.
> The QUALITY IDEA
> is some rebel intellectual pattern an the resistance
> to the proper MOQ
> shows intellect's sway over reality.
The terms static quality and Dynamic Quality are
intellectual but that to which DQ refers is not.
What "proper MOQ"?
> Yes, yes and yes again, it can be called mind, but
> the problem is that
> it is interpreted as SOM's mind, nobody makes the
> distinction, not
> even the annotating Pirsig who calls it "an exact
> equivalent".
SOM's mind is fine as long as we take it as a
deduction from experience and not a fundamental
starting point of reality. So are subjects, objects,
logic, science, reason and all of the things Pirsig
rails against in ZMM. The MOQ encases all subjective
and objective views of static reality, restates value
as the empirical starting point of experience and
maintains the necessarily ineffable nature of ultimate
reality.
cheers
Paul
__________________________________________________
Yahoo! Plus - For a better Internet experience
http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/yplus/yoffer.html
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 Jul 01 2003 - 11:44:23 BST