From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Feb 18 2004 - 18:40:42 GMT
Bo:At times I despair a little over "Lila's Child". Listen and listen well:
What Science (as intellect) studies are the regularities (patterns)
of the inorganic level! .....OF THE MOQ! Why this about
scientific knowledge being "subjective" when Pirsig armed with
Quality KNOWLEDGE has declared the inorganic patterns (plus
the other levels and their patterns) to exist beyond any
subject/object context. It sounds as if Pirsig doesn't quite take his
own MOQ serious, but still operates from SOM's premises.
DM: Well that is good for me. Does this mean we can dump
the SO divide and stick to the pattern language from now on?
Is the value of the SO divide merely a ladder we can now throw
away from our new higher location?
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2004 9:22 AM
Subject: RE: MD Objectivity, Truth, MOQ and Skyscrapers
> Paul and Mati (even if unsubscribed) and Group.
>
> I have deleted most of my own stuff to keep it within limits.
>
> 16 Feb. Paul wrote:
>
> > Well, I think this is not entirely correct. I think experience is
> > regarded by the MOQ as the combination of Dynamic and static quality.
> > Consider the following statements:
>
> The dynamic/static relationship is a great puzzle, I am not entirely
> sure how to interpret it. To me DQ is something that pulls the Q-
> evolution along, while the static rules see to the stability ...what
> else? It would be a strange world if there was a dynamic element
> at work - for instance - at the inorganic level. And if not there why
> at biology, and Society ...even Intellect. What is the idea of static
> if DQ constantly meddles?
>
> > Seen in the light of the above statements, do you see why I think this
> > is incorrect? E.g. as I read the above, you've converted "life" into a
> > kind of "subject" experiencing "inorganic matter" as an object. Static
> > patterns make no value judgements, static patterns *are* value
> > judgements.
>
> Biology is the level that grew out of the inorganic and "devours" it
> for own purpose and does nothing BUT pick and chose (judge)
> among inorganic patterns. The amoeba (in ZMM) judged the acid
> drop to be bad quality and shied away. Don't try to be too
> "prodigious" dear Paul ;-).
>
> > If you are looking for a static measure of intellectual quality then
> > how about this..
>
> > "Intellectual quality measurements are logic, fittingness to empirical
> > data, economy of statement, and what is sometimes called 'elegance' by
> > mathematicians. Social quality measurements of quality, by contrast,
> > are such things as conformity to social custom, popularity, ego
> > satisfaction, and 'reputation'. Biological standards are physical pain
> > and pleasure." [Pirsig, 1998]
>
> No doubt intellectual patterns must meet intellectual criteria ..and
> Pirsig's examples sound very much like "objective clarity over
> subjective mess". But intellect is as static as the rest and does
> neither like nor recognize any "beyond" movement ...OK
> enough, you have heard this before.
>
> > I think the 9/11 bombers were motivated by social and biological
> > patterns of anger, hatred, religious zealotry and deference to
> > authority. Putting intellectual patterns, of any quality, to the use
> > of biological and social patterns is a form of evil in the MOQ.
>
> Yes, that's correct, still you seem determined to regard "ideas" as
> intellectual patterns, thus "thoughts" about destroying the WTC
> were intellectual ...before being usurped by social value. This is
> not only cumbersome, but removes all explanatory power from
> the MOQ. Why not skip this idea-intellect and treat it as is written
> in the MOQ: A static level! Only very definite ideas are
> intellectual.
>
> > Value creates ideas and is not really a property of them, but that
> > aside, the something "beyond intellect" is Dynamic Quality.
>
> > "[T]he Metaphysics of Quality says that Dynamic Quality - the
> > value-force that chooses an elegant mathematical solution to a
> > laborious one, or a brilliant experiment over a confusing,
> > inconclusive one - is another matter altogether. Dynamic Quality is a
> > higher moral order than static scientific truth.." [Lila p.418]
>
> Why would DC be so terribly active at intellect? Intellectual
> stability keep intellectual order and the most dynamic theories are
> not always appreciated. To the contrary, academia is extremely
> conservative f.ex the MOQ is so dynamic that it is completely
> overlooked. However, I understand that Pirsig here means the
> individual perception of Quality, yet, an individual is a jungle of
> value levels, so his own perception of the Quality Idea was
> something ahead of intellect - outside the SOM mythos -
> therefore the MOQ is something beyond. It always add up this
> way.
>
> > He didn't say that we should discard matter. The MOQ does two things
> > with matter. First it says that matter is better described as a form
> > of quality - static inorganic quality. Second it says that reality is
> > not entirely a form of or an extension of the properties of static
> > inorganic quality.
>
> "Matter" does not correspond to MOQ's "Inorganic Value" other
> than in the most superficial way. Your second point is of course
> ...I'm out of kindergarten ;-)
>
> > The same is done with mind. It says that mind is better described as a
> > form of quality - static intellectual quality. Then it says that
> > reality is not entirely a form of or an extension of the properties of
> > static intellectual quality.
>
> "Mind" least of all corresponds to anything in the MOQ. But this
> leads into a debate where we know each other's standpoints unto
> exhaustion.
>
> > We are then out of the irresolvable mind/matter relationship because
> > one does not have to be reduced to the other. They are both reduced to
> > patterns of value. See this from Ant's Textbook.
>
> What does it help that they are "reduced to patterns of value"
> when you (and Pirsig) keeps on about subjective and objective as
> if nothing has happened.
>
> > "The MOQ never says that the intellectual level is just the inorganic
> > level in disguise. The only reason the SOM people say that, I think,
> > is that they are trying to prove that everything is inorganic in order
> > to satisfy the demands of materialism. But in the MOQ all the levels
> > are embedded in quality and they don't need to be embedded in each
> > other." (Pirsig, 2001b)
>
> > Paul:
> > I'll let Pirsig's words answer that one:
>
> > "It's clear I've been of two minds on whether subjects and objects
> > should be included in the MOQ. My earlier view, when I was
> > concentrating on the confusion of subject-object thinking, was to get
> > rid of them entirely to help clarify things. Later I began to see it's
> > not necessary to get rid of them because the MOQ can encase them
> > neatly within its structure-the upper two levels being subjective, and
> > the lower two, objective. Still later I saw that the subject-object
> > distinction is very useful for sharply distinguishing between
> > biological and social levels.
>
> That the S/O distinction must be incorporated in the MOQ is
> clear. But I have trouble understanding what weight - for the
> instance - "subjective" carries in the "socio+intell= subjects case?
>
> > If I had been more careful in my editing, I would have eliminated or
> > modified the earlier statements to bring them into agreement with the
> > latter ones. However I missed these and it's valuable that the Lila
> > Squad has caught them." [Lila's Child p.531]
>
> In the SOL solution only the VALUE of the S/O remains, no
> "objects" and "subjects" that must be distributed across the static
> sequence. If elegance ranges over a laborious one my solution
> would have been accepted, but the MOQ has developed its own
> "academia" ...and a chairman too ;-)
>
> > Paul:
> > Now you are doing it. All "scientific properties" including those
> > ascribed to objective (inorganic-biological) patterns are elements of
> > intellectual knowledge and are therefore subjective.
>
> This is the impossible side to the said way of incorporating the
> S/O. First what is this "subjectivity" that clings to the social and
> intellectual levels? Is it the same as the original SOM one, or a
> "light" variety? And the MOQ as an intellectual pattern becomes
> just another subjective idea. No wonder that Matthew PK had an
> easy play with you.
>
> > "Scientists often forget that all scientific knowledge is subjective
> > knowledge based on experience, although science does not deny that
> > this is true." [Pirsig, Lila's Child p.178]
>
> At times I despair a little over "Lila's Child". Listen and listen well:
> What Science (as intellect) studies are the regularities (patterns)
> of the inorganic level! .....OF THE MOQ! Why this about
> scientific knowledge being "subjective" when Pirsig armed with
> Quality KNOWLEDGE has declared the inorganic patterns (plus
> the other levels and their patterns) to exist beyond any
> subject/object context. It sounds as if Pirsig doesn't quite take his
> own MOQ serious, but still operates from SOM's premises.
>
> 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
>
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 : Wed Feb 18 2004 - 18:44:04 GMT