From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Feb 10 2004 - 09:08:55 GMT
David M. and MD.
Sorry for the delay, on 5 Feb. you responded to my query why the
Social-Intellectual transition is regarded as a "fall".
> I find the fall and rise mythos useful
> in many schemes of analysis. Cosmologically
> I assume that the ultimate beginining is some
> kind of whole/Onesness/Nothingness. The creation
> of finite existence is a sort of fall into materiality,
OK, I follow you here. This is the emergence of the inorganic
realm ...of the MOQ.
> more and more
> SQ until we reach complex molecules all their association with
> deterministic causality. From there thinks march upwards again to
> greater wholeness and more DQ and less SQ.
And this is the biological realm and the development within it?
You call it more DQ and less SQ (more biological dynamism)
something I agree with, the trend is toward less stability, which
eventually leads to a dynamism so great that it spawns the next
level.
> Within the human level I
> see SO divide as a retracing of this cosmic story, dividing whole
> quality experience into a SO divide where we discover objects as
> causally determined and utterly other to our subjectivity.
There isn't any "human level" so I'm not sure where you are now,
maybe at the Social, but if you see this as the scene of the
subject/object divide (in the metaphysical sense) I find it too
soon. Even if Pirsig says that "social" means the human kind,
there is an immense chasm between the Neanderthal societies
and the great cultures at the beginning of historical times (still
"social" according to Pirsig) Throughout this stage the S/O was
absent.
Anyway, it was the "fall" aspect we were discussing. At the
Neanderthal times language was absent thus the Bio-Social
transition wouldn't have been recorded "mentally". Still, even if
we don't regard language a Q-level change, it must have spelt a
major shift*) in the "us different from the animals" sense, and that
may have been perceived like a loss of innocence. Maybe this is
the Biblical fall?
*)
I do regard language the social "carbon" that brought about
Intellect, and in that sense I agree with Pirsig about "symbol
manipulation", but his is like saying that inorganic carbon IS life.
> From this
> alienated position
Now we/you are at the intellectual level, no? And this is the S/O
divide itself (in my opinion), and from here the transition from the
previous social era is regard as another loss, like in ZMM where
Social value [Aretê] seems to be Quality itself, while Intellect
[SOM] is a "prison".
> we can try putting things back together again so we
> go both beyond the SO divide and return to a pre-alienated and more
> holistic conception, an example of which is MOQ.
Yes, MOQ is a "reunion", but to be so it must be something
beyond the intellectual level ...ah, this may not be your great
interest ;-).
> See Arthur M Young's
> Reflexive Universe for a larger version of this scheme. Young suggest
> a number of falling (into SQ) levels of the inorganic before you hit
> the DQ driven levels (rising) of the organic: plants/animals/man.
Interesting! Also thanks for the comment to what you found good
in Paul's post. I agree that he is a clear thinker and a excellent
writer, but it is the MOQ we are discussing? Also that we tend to
comment too many points, but it's hard to say stop.
IMO
Bo
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 Feb 10 2004 - 09:10:26 GMT