From: Jonathan B. Marder (jonathan.marder@newmail.net)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 06:30:04 BST
Hi Rick, Bo, Platt, Joao, David B. and all,
First let me deal with Rick and Bo discussing how the intellectual of the
Intellectual level is not the same as the intellect of pre/post intellectual
awareness.
I am very unhappy about this - I think it muddies the whole concept. It
shoves intellect into two completely different parts of the MoQ hierarchy,
thus greatly diminishing its meaning. This is very similar to Pirsig's
objection (in ZAMM) of how classical (SO) philosophy destroys the Quality
concept.
Rick went on to make some substantive comments about my earlier post:
<<<In LILA (ch12 p172) Pirsig claims that if you construct an encyclopedia
of
four topics- Inorganic, Biological, Social and Intellectual- nothing is left
out (except DQ). [snip] .Now, you wrote, "Without Intellect, there are no
levels. The inorganic level
includes both "physical matter" and what we think and feel about it, and the
same goes for the biological levels." This would suggest to me that your
answer would be that the encyclopedia without an Intellectual section is not
"incomplete" it's just that the subjects that used to be grouped under
"Intellectual" have now been integrated into the sections about the objects
[snip] And that would be
a pretty good answer (if that's not what you'd say, please correct me). But
I think that some patterns would still be left out.>>>
Jonathan replies:
Rick, when I first presented this idea in the last century, I followed
Pirsig's obsession that nothing should be left out.
I now realize that something is ALWAYS left out (isn't that what Gödel is
all about?). Specifically, to put it in Pirsigian terms, the patterns
contained within the levels are Static Quality, and what is left out is
Dynamic Quality. This is the reason that doing metaphysics is degenerate.
It now makes more sense to me. Preintellectual reality is quality before the
cleaver of intellect strikes and interprets it as distinct patterns.
Rick also raised some good points about where (level wise) to put imaginary
patterns like "kryptonite" and fictional characters in novels. I would
suggest that our awareness of patterns like these (and also abstract
patterns like numbers, equations etc.) is always in relation to "real-world"
analogies. Thus the level at which such patterns exist lie in our "level of
awareness" of them. (That's the short answer anyway - perhaps more
explanation is in order).
JOAO, your response was well worth waiting for:
<<<Maybe would be good to see social patterns as verifiable in a small,
closet set of
individuals. But not if new individuals *enter* the system, because the
social system would change by definition.>>>
I agree, but insist that the same applies to inorganic and biological
patterns. What you call "social system" I call "context". That applies to
theorizing about ALL the levels.
JOAO
Maybe what is at every level is quality. The intellectual level is the place
where minds are, with each own's theories, thoughts and feelings.
JONATHAN
I agree, and I want to put intellect exactly in the same place - where the
quality is.
Regards to all,
Jonathan
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 Jul 21 2003 - 06:30:41 BST