Rick and Group
(RICK) 17 July 2000:
> I want to start by saying that I've been a little bothered the fact
> that this thread is running mainly under the heading "Science or
> Emotivism?" because I feel as though it misdirects the thrust of the
> topic. The main question should be more like, "How can we discern the
> respective level for any individual pattern?"
This sounds a bit like the vessel with distinct patterns inside that I
found so troublesome when we discussed Intellect. I favour the
dimensional view of the levels where everything gets a "vector" (I
see that there is no such word in English in my dictionary, but you
now: an arrow containing direction and value) - short or long -
according to its value in that direction. Remember the throne
thread. A royal ceremonial chair. Is it inorganic or social value or
...? The next thing is to ask: "In itself or seen from ...etc?"
(objective or subjective sneaks in). As a throne the contraption has
a dominant social vector, the other neglible, yet existing and
waxing and waning according to dynamic focus.
> The idea of
> science/emotivism doesn't come into play until we start speculating on
> the consequences of asking this initial question.
...until we start applying subject-object terms to the MOQ!..... .-)
> If one proposes a
> straight answer to this question (i.e. 3WDave's ideas about Ken
> WIlbur) then science/emotivism never becomes an issue. However, if one
> tries to sidestep the problem, or dissolve the question (Moo) then we
> have problems. The problem that arises is that if we can't "seperate"
> the components of an actual moral dilemma into their respective levels
> with some degree of accuracy, then anyone even remotely skilled in
> argument can use the MoQ to justify both sides of almost any moral
> question. Pirsig's claim that the MoQ facilitates greater precision in
> moral reasoning therefore becomes hollow > YOU WROTE: > I wish Rick
> would provide examples of these difficulties. RICK: Sometimes I feel
> like the examples of moral interpretations used in LILA (doctor/germ,
> hindu/cow) seem so persuasive because the MoQ was designed to justify
> the examples and not vice versa... maybe not, but it makes you think.
> Anyway, I find it hard to believe that you don't see ambiguity in
> breaking down actual moral situations with the levels.
Perhaps I do, but take so grand sweeps that any ambiguity is
insignificant ;-)
> RICK:
> As you know, I'm very familiar with your thoughts on the Intellectual
> level. However, I'm not sure how the "Intellect-foucs" is the source
> of the difficulties we're discussing this month and so I don't see how
> this helps; perhaps you'd care to elaborate a bit.
About this month's "moral guide" discussion I don't know (and
should possibly just shut up), but I just can't get things general
enough and tend to see all levels (when top of evolution) as their
age's "metaphysics"? Once inorganic value ruled the universe and
set the agenda (forget about any intellectual: "I'm an atom and will
do my things") and so on upwards, each value level looking upon
itself as reality itself (I don't know about the rest of the universe
regarding life, but I guess it's universal). Biological "metaphysics"
had its era and was bypassed by Social "metaphysics" which
included language. Finally enter the Intellect era when REALITY
became divided into the known subject/object compartments and
where focus still is ..... but has started to shift to the QUALITY
level .....in my opinion!
> BO:
> You know, anything can be endured if you know its MEANING. A bad
> feeling is bad only until you know its source; a good diagnosis is a
> cure in itself.
> RICK:
> Maybe, sometimes... but I can think of thousands of problems where
> knowledge of it's source and meaning provide very little comfort. I
> doubt you really need me to provide examples of such situations.
I don't believe that cancer (for example) is less deadly because of
the name, but objectivization (isolation) of it - as an entity - is the
first step towards a cure. It's just a matter of time now. To the
Social "metaphysics" such things weren't illnesses at all rather
curses that could only be countered with counter-curses -
subjective mumbo-jumbo to Intellect ...but according to my
"metaphysics" above it was that era's reality and still works when
faith healers makes people well..
> BO:
> > I don't think even Pirsig would know the exact level for things and
> phenomena because there are no such. It's turning the MOQ back into
> SOM: These (objective) things and phenomena, where do they fit this
> (subjective) theory of Pirsig's? No, better look to Magnus'
> space-dimensional analogue where everything has a position vector.
> Everything has one or more value vectors.
> RICK:
> I'm not quite sure about these "multiple-level" interpretations yet...
> Pirsig's examples with the patient/germ and hindus/cows seem to be
> convincing evidence for his belief that individual patterns belong to
> individual levels
See the dimensional vs container view above.
> On a related topic, I have started putting together a website on which
> I will attempt to begin the project I described in the post "Working
> Backwards...." I'm very much hoping I can count on your help when it
> gets going. It's the first step in the direction of MoQ evolution, a
> step I believe that you have been waiting to take.
Interesting! Count on me.
Bo
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:25 BST