From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Aug 07 2003 - 09:19:46 BST
Hi Steve
On 5 Aug. you declared:
> Are you suggesting that people generally don't choose between a bunch
> of available metaphysics? I agree.
Good!
> 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 "..an 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.
Sincerely
Bo
PS
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 - 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 : Thu Aug 07 2003 - 09:26:41 BST