RE: MD Lila's Child (Bo's metaphysics part 2)

From: Paul Turner (
Date: Sun Aug 10 2003 - 12:45:18 BST

  • Next message: Platt Holden: "Re: MD myths and symbols"

    Hi Bo

    I don't think I deviate from the MOQ, rather point to the higher pattern

    as "better" in the sense that it is further AWAY from the original
    rigidity (LILA Chapter 11) Yet, is most "resistant" at the lower end of
    the scale. Regarding biology, the mammal is definitely at the high end
    (in the said sense), but more vulnerable to changing inorganic
    conditions than plants .... that have survived all mass extinctions.

    Yes, more Dynamic=less stable, more static=more resistant. But this
    still means that there is a scale of quality in each level, which is my
    > Why does he talk of intellectual patterns being "of higher quality"
    > than others?

    The same goes for intellect, but here again the impossible "thinking"
    definition shows. How can thinking (as such) evolve? It can but then
    in the sense that "intellectual thinking" is better than "social
    ..which is better than "biological thinking" , but this makes for a MOT
    and is not where you want, rather that Q-intellect's thought-patterns
    have improved from ...from what to what? I find nothing to hold on to
    what is the basic value? Spend some time on that Paul!

    "Therefore, to the question, "What is the purpose of all this
    intellectual knowledge?" the Metaphysics of Quality answers, "The
    fundamental purpose of knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve
    society." Knowledge has grown away from this historic purpose and become
    and end in itself just as society has grown away from its original
    purpose of preserving physical human beings and become and end in
    itself, and this growing away from original purposes toward greater
    Quality is a moral growth." Lila p344

    Of course, this quote is from Pirsig, who clearly doesn't understand the
    MOQ as well as you ;-)

    I think the basic value of thinking is the conceptual organisation and
    explanation of experience. Intellectual patterns evolve towards better
    explanations of experience.

    The static aspect of intellect seems to
    pass you by completely.


    The various "homos"(!) were social beings and that value had started
    to influence biology, so the Sapiens' huge brain wasn't all biological
    (caused) Your question might as well be about the monkey-ape
    evolution, and the answer is the same "away from" into greater

    A brain isn't biological? I understood that "homo sapiens sapiens"
    refers to anatomically defined physical beings, as such is purely a
    biological term. I will stand corrected if a biologist can prove

    What does the MOQ say about "greater complexity" then?

    5. The "CONTAINER PROBLEM" argument

    > Paul:
    > There is no logic to your solution. Even if the MOQ is a fifth level
    > within its own structure you have the same "container problem". If the
    > MOQ is not a static pattern within a level, what is it? According to
    > the MOQ, it must be Dynamic Quality. This seems linked to the
    > Metaphysics of Metaphysics postulate.

    No logic? Phew! There are none as blind as those who don't see.

    Perhaps you can demonstrate the logic of your "solution" next time?


    > Paul:
    > I think that static quality can be defined as patterned aesthetic,
    > Dynamic Quality is therefore unpatterned aesthetic, and Quality is
    > both.

    Static means stable so once a level is established it can't change -
    except grow in the said manner. Intellect is now the barrier that DQ
    will have to overcome to move on. All talk about a dynamic intellect is
    nonsense, there will be a an intellectual pattern so instable that it
    go off on a purpose of its own. Phaedrus of ZMM conceived of such a
    pattern ..and the rest is history.

    I agree that "Dynamic intellect" is a logical contradiction. However,
    the MOQ nevertheless gives intellectual meaning to the RELATIONSHIP of
    Dynamic Quality to static intellectual patterns.

    "It seems to me that a keystone in a bridge between the Metaphysics of
    Quality and Complementarity may be established if what has been called
    the "unmeasured phenomenal object" is now called the "The Conceptually
    Unknown" and what is called "Dynamic Quality" is also called "The
    Conceptually Unknown." Then the two come together. I would guess that
    the Conceptually Unknown is an unacceptable category in physics because
    it is intellectually meaningless and physics is only concerned with what
    is intellectually meaningful. That also might be why Bohr never
    mentioned it. However I think that this avoidance of The Conceptually
    Unknown should be revised. It is like saying that the number zero is
    unacceptable to mathematics because there's nothing there. Mathematics
    has done very well with the number "zero" despite that fact. The
    Conceptually Unknown, it seems to me is a workable intellectual category
    for the description of nature and it ought to be worked more." SODV

    And on my use of the term "aesthetic":

    "This aesthetic nature of the Conceptually Unknown is a point of
    connection between the sciences and the arts. What relates science to
    the arts is that science explores the Conceptually Unknown in order to
    develop a theory that will cover measurable patterns emerging from the
    unknown. The arts explore the Conceptually Unknown in other ways to
    create patterns such as music, literature, painting, that reveal the
    Dynamic Quality that produced them. This description, I think, is the
    rational connection between science and the arts." SODV


    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 : Sun Aug 10 2003 - 12:46:49 BST