Re: MD Lila's Child

Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 09:19:46 BST

  • Next message: Sam Norton: "Re: MD Intellectually Nowhere"

    Hi Steve
    On 5 Aug. you declared:

    > Are you suggesting that people generally don't choose between a bunch
    > of available metaphysics? I agree.


    > SOM is part of the Western
    > worldview. It isn't explicitly chosen and it doesn't need to be
    > specifically taught.

    Even better!!

    > But if its isn't an intellectual pattern, then
    > what could it be?

    It is intellect itself. All of it.

    > According to the MOQ our only choices for what it is are static
    > inorganic, biological, social, and intellectual patterns, DQ, or a
    > forest of static patterns. You want to say that the S/O divide is the
    > intellectual level itself rather than being contained in the
    > intellectual level

    Oh, you knew my opinion? Good ;-).

    > but everything but DQ is supposed to be patterns
    > of value. So again, what is the S/O divide if not a static
    > intellectual pattern keeping the available choices in mind?

    All things and phenomena covered by the static sequence ...except
    what is dynamic. Sure! And the S/O divide is the value of the static
    intellectual level, in the same sense that "commonalty" is that of the
    social level and "living" (platitudinous!) of the biological level. What am
    I missing?

    > I don't know of anything else called a "metaphysics of ______" or
    > "______ metaphysics", yet I if I did some research I'm sure that I
    > could provide a very long list of isms that include an explicit
    > metaphysical position, e.g. objectivism, materialism, realism,
    > idealism. Pirsig's term SOM is a category for all these isms in
    > contrast to an MOQ.

    Steve, you really understand!
    > In place of "concept" read "pattern of experience." The SOMist infers
    > patterns based on a certain set of assumptions that he doesn't realize
    > that he makes. The MOQist consciously postulates that reality is
    > value and works from there inferring patterns of value.

    That's right

    > You want to say that this divide is not a pattern of value but rather
    > that it is Q-intellect itself

    Correct, the S/O divide is not ONE intellectual pattern but the value
    itself, but you must not make an issue of this sounding as a label with
    the patterns inside it (that's intellect's eternal S/O-divide again)

    > (a term that Pirsig never used as far as
    > I know),

    That's right. In Lila's Child he first defines Q-intellect as "thinking" and
    then thinking as "manipulation of concepts ...etc.". Some other place
    as " exact equivalent to mind", but it makes no sense to introduce
    the mind half of SOM after having rejected it.

    > while Pirsig says that everything is either a static pattern
    > of value or DQ. What type of pattern, then, is Q-intellect and its
    > 'language (concepts)/real world divide '?

    ...what am I missing in your reasoning???? Q-intellect is the the
    VALUE of the S/O divide! Because its a great value, let there be no
    doubt about it.

    > (Also, I don't know that you can speak for "the true MOQist" as your
    > MOQ differs from Pirsig's.

    Yes, I know, but I see this "bug" in the MOQ and want to weed it out.

    > That's okay, Pirsig suggested that many
    > MOQ's are possible and that his would not be the final word.

    Wise words. In the beginning there was one Doug Renselle (him of
    the Quantonics site) who made all sorts of weird tables of levels below
    the inorganic (at that time the inorganic level was a great issue, while
    we have shifted to the other extreme). In a letter Pirsig said that if one
    had a different view of the MOQ one should call it something different.
    But, I afraid Pirsig has released a Genie from a bottle and has lost
    control of it. Except as the copyright holder ;-)

    > What is
    > important in any MOQ is that we see value as primary reality. I'm
    > glad to discuss Bo's MOQ with you and glad that you are willing to
    > consider my ideas.)

    My pleasure, always.


    I noticed this from your 5th. of August

    > Whether dogs or apes are capable of learning is this social way and
    > passing on a culture is an interesting question. I don't rule it out
    > based on Pirsig's quote because I don't see him as speaking ex cathedra on
    > this matter since he is presumably not an expert in zoology. I suspect
    > the biological requirements for developing social patterns depends in part
    > on "the mammalian brain" which includes a capacity for emotions which I'm
    > sure that dog's have.

    I won't comment the animal society issue now (we once debated it
    hotly) but just say that I liked you remark about emotion ... which is
    the social "expression" par excellence (sensation is biology's). Now
    that few of the original participants are left they will have to endure if I
    present the list and its explanation again. Coming soon!

    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 09:26:41 BST