Hi Focs (esp. Bodvar and Dave),
Bodvar, I think it will be useful to summarise our agreements and
disagreements. Please correct me if I misrepresent your position
> I think that Jonathan and I have a little disagreement in spite of
> declarations of agreement. . . .
I think that we both have a problem with MoQ having an Intellectual
Level that is equivalent to "mind".
My position is to accept that Intellect=Mind, and is involved in every
manifestation of Static Patterns from PREINTELLECTUAL reality (DQ).
Thus, intellect involves ALL paterns of all levels. This means that
Intellect can't function as a discreet level, which is why I regard it
as a NON-level (see earlier posts).
In contrast, Bodvar wants to keep a discreet Intellectual level:
> Intellect MUST be limited lest it becomes everything and nothing is
> gained.
>
> So, in the above light I wonder if our (Jonathan & mine)
> disagreement is substantial?
Maybe our disagreement is in what we place under the umbrella of
Intellect.
Thus our arguments arise because we are talking about two different
things!
> When a stone age group gathered
> around the fire and spoke to each other, language was not a
> vehicle of Intellect in the MOQ sense. It was an enhancing of (the
> social) INTELLIGENCE which the still older hominides used body
> signals to convey. . . .
It is now quite clear that we consider Intellect to mean different
things. I am genuinely uncertain as to what is the correct "MOQ sense".
IMO, Bo's approach leads a complicated metaphysical hierarchy in which
people constantly tinker by adding new levels. For example:
> My interpretation that S/O is Q-Intellect puts the QUALITY idea in
> a position as some groping 5th level. From there abstract/concrete
> has no jurisdiction outside intellect's own circle.
I prefer an approach that encourges simplification.
Bodvar, you will excuse me for not dealing with other comments. I think
that further arguments will just be more of the same . . .
However, I will respond to Dave's very welcome attempts to find common
ground
3rdWaveDave says:
> > At first blush would seem that Jonathan leans towards the
rationalist
> > camp while Bo leans toward other, and given Jonathan background in
> > science this bias might be so. But I'm also pretty sure that in
> > general they both agree with Pirsig on these three statements:
> > "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
> > intellectual abstractions." Lila-pp 64
Actually, I only partially agree with this. It is a definition of DQ
only and excludes SQ. IMO the full quality experience is an ongoing
process that eventually draws on previous experience and intellectual
abstractions (the Classical part).
> > " Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on for ever
and
> > ever, always the cutting edge of the present." SODV pp 12-13
>
> > "Static Quality is the class of stable or accepted values, patterns,
> > laws, customs, and theories that societies have formalized and that
> > change little over time. Lila-pp 58 "
I would add that different Static Quality patterns have different
lifetimes. Some are ephemeral, some are eternal.
[snip]
> >I'm sure you both would agree that Static
> > Quality is "abstract". The bug-a-boo comes, IMO, with Dynamic
> > Quality. Is it "concrete" reality? And if it is where does that
leave
> > Quality?
I accept that SQ is abstract. I also have a way to deal with the DQ
problem.
In a classical sense, DQ is not part of reality since it is UNREALIZED.
In this sense it is the precursor of reality. Let me give a biochemical
example: Most people believe that carrots contain Vitamin A, but this is
not strictly true - Carrots contain beta-carotene (provitamin A), a
precursor that the body converts to retinol (true vitamin A).
To use another metaphor, DQ is the acorn that contains the oak tree of
reality.
Thanks everyone for a great discussion.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST