From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Aug 12 2003 - 15:52:30 BST
Hi Scott
Scott:
As in, in the MOQ, Quality is the source of everything. This is an
immaterial source of such material things as brains. In my view, one
could
redo the MOQ giving Intelligence (or, as Coleridge does, Reason, or, as
John
the Evangelist does, the Logos) as the source of everything. Not there
are
two conflicting sources, but at that rarified level, Quality is
Intelligence
is Love is Wisdom, etc.
Paul:
So your definition of the intellectual level is necessarily distinct
from "intelligence" which is the groundstuff of reality? A Metaphysics
of Intelligence?
Scott:
So my statement is merely to say that the material comes from the
immaterial, and the immaterial is "of the same nature" as our mind.
Paul:
This seems to lead to the philosophy of idealism. In the MOQ, and in the
Mahayanistic Buddhism of Nagarjuna, both the "material" and the
"immaterial" are further reduced to something fundamental to both and
without conceptual distinction. As I recall Barfield, he doesn't make
the step into metaphysics (he isn't concerned with the fundamental
nature of reality) but is content with an explanation of consciousness
and perception. Have you extended Barfield's thought into a metaphysics?
Scott:
To be
physical beings we need a brain to coordinate all the subatomic (and
other
immaterial) goings-on into a nice 4-dimensional spacetime picture that
we
call "physical reality". So Intelligence put one together.
Paul:
I would say that the intellectual level put one together based on a
pre-intellectual aesthetic evaluation of alternatives.
Scott:
As always,
consider this kind of talk mythical. For some philosophical
justification,
consider that everything that we sense is produced by our minds (not
that
there isn't anything independent of our selves, but that its form,
color,
etc. are so produced. We don't see photons or hear air vibrations,
etc.).
The "material" is usually taken to be "sense-perceptible", and the
"sense-perceptible" is a mental creation, so what I am saying is just
drawing out the consequences.
Paul:
Yes, inorganic nature is actually postulated and confirmed by a
correspondence to the deduced consequences of a hypothesis, but I would
say that sensation is empirical and immediately apprehended, but of an
aesthetic nature, that is, value differentiates the experience, not
"things-in-themselves".
Scott:
I erred in saying "SOM viewpoint", and should have said "S/O viewpoint".
Paul:
Not aimed at your or anyone in particular but I think the use of "S/O"
is ambiguous and used too freely. It can mean at least three things:
1. Metaphysical "subject-object" distinction
2. Epistemological "subjective vs objective" distinction
3. I/Other distinction
You
said: " I think the basic value of thinking is the conceptual
organisation
and explanation of experience." You are setting something labelled
"experience" against its "conceptual organization and explanation".
Paul:
The something labelled "experience" is Dynamic Quality, the conceptual
organization and explanation becomes static quality. Part of that
explanation is the postulated "object" (inorganic-biological) and
postulated "self" (social-intellectual).
Scott:
That
language/reality distinction is what I was referring to as being an S/O
viewpoint. I would also say it is unavoidable unless and until we evolve
further.
Paul:
That's 4 things "S/O" can mean!
Scott:
Yes. It is also in an S/O form. I don't disagree with the idea that
there
are explanations, nor that an explanation cannot be a creation. Only
with
the notion that explanations can escape S/O thinking.
Paul:
But not a S/O metaphysical form? I think that the value of thinking
may be " / ", that is "the value of differentiation".
Paul previously:
> With no conceptual organisation of experience there are no
explanations,
> with no explanations there is no prediction, with no prediction there
is
> no science, with no science there is no technology, with no technology
> there is no internet, with no internet there is no on-line discussion
> group to discuss the MOQ, with no on-line discussion group we wouldn't
> be having this discussion about what the value of the intellectual
level
> is.
>
> My experience right now is explained very well by saying that we are
> having this discussion. I guess the question is - are "concepts" and
> "ideas" a side effect of "creativity for its own sake"? Is this all an
> illusory consequence of creativity?
Scott:
All true. But also all S/O.
Paul:
Again, please clarify the use of S/O.
Scott:
Yes, Intelligence (see above -- replace it with
Quality if desired) has evolved us to the point where most all our
experience and most all our intellect is in S/O form, and so that is the
form for our creativity. We can -- thanks to thinkers like Pirsig,
Barfield,
Coleridge and others -- figure out that this S/O form is not basic, but
it
takes something more than our S/O thinking to move beyond it.
Paul:
Although Pirsig's point was that S/O thinking can be transcended even by
fixing a motorcycle in the "right way".
Scott:
What SOM says
is that the concepts and ideas derive -- are abstractions -- from what
the
concepts and ideas are about.
Paul:
Materialism says that, idealism agrees with what you say below.
Scott:
What I (following Barfield following Coleridge
following...Plato, with modifications) am suggesting is that some
rarified
version of those concepts and ideas creates the experience in the first
place.
Paul:
The MOQ says that aesthetic experience creates ideas which create
explanations of experience, which includes things like "objects".
Regarding Barfield, I think "figuration" corresponds with the basic
function of the intellectual level. How do you see it?
Cheers
Paul
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 Aug 12 2003 - 15:55:02 BST