Diana, Bo, Denis, Johannes and all
(about the progress of the MOQ...)
Diana:
> > When I see people
> > wondering what morality has to do with it all anyway, or asking
> > whether quality is subjective or objective (!!), it makes me wonder if
> > we'll ever make any progress at all.
Bo:
> You are just right on this last point. At times it is as if nothing has
> been achieved and not the least bit of SOM's immense hold on us
> is understood - just new victims of the chat epidemic. But then I
> recall how it was - all those years wondering if just this silly
> person cared about Pirsig's work with no way of finding out. Then
> LILA and some more years before the Internet made it to me, then
> the "Lila Squad/MD/MF/moq.org homepage" still going strong. At
> least there are places to speak and read about the Quality
> Metaphysics.
>
IMO there are two possible directions in order to extend the MOQ. One is in
depth, towards a more and more accurate comprehension of the metaphysical
nature, following the basic line indicated by Pirsig: Value=Reality, the
sq/DQ split, the evolutionary nature of universe. Another, very important
as well, is towards a diffusion of the MOQ to a wider number of people.
The former is the dynamic extension, a sort of "leading edge" of the MOQ.
The latter is the static latch and its importance is to make it possible for
the MOQ to reach more and more people, so that someone sooner or later will
be able to develop a new step. This is the main reason which leaded me to
develop the Italian version of the MOQ.org site, as probably it has been the
basic reason for the foundation of MOQ.org. (right, Diana?). By the way, I
forgot to mention my involvement in the Italian site in my precedent post;
of course, it's another example of the MOQ's effect on my personal life.
I think that an on-line discussion group like this is not the best tool in
order to deepen the MOQ, while its perfect to diffuse it. It's obvious that
everyone can enter, even without knowing the MOQ at all, so there's never a
solid starting point and easily we have a "metaphysical discussion at the
end of every sentence". But it's a fertile ground where thinkers can find or
offer some "memetic" (?) -or whatever else- seed.
Maybe suggestions and initiatives like Lila's Child, the "moq conference",
or simply the request of a summary/conclusion at the end of every MF
topics, are symptoms of the need of deeper investigations. Of course running
the
forum can be more and more boring and static, but the results are very good,
I guess. It's the RiTual which makes it possible the cReaTivity.
==================
(about IQ tests, intuition and intelligence)
With Diana, I agree that after all both reason and intuition are part of
intelligence. The mental process is probably the same, the only difference
resides in the value we give to / perceive from "things". Diana's friend
which is attracted by fashion is not stupid or irrational or mad, like some
pompous thinker could argue: simply gives and perceives value in fashion,
more than .. for example, sports, or philosophy or whatever else.
Of course an IQ test is focused on a narrow aspect of intelligence, so, as
every instrument, can measure only itself. I'm a strong supporter of the
idea that we must consider intellect as something more wide and inclusive
than simple rationality. The aesthetic, intuitive, artistic aspects are
intellectual just like the rational and logic aspects. As we know, it's
commonly accepted that these aspects are driven by two different sides of
our brain, however it's ONE brain. Or do you know someone with only one
half? Intuition is the Dynamic side of intellect, while logic is the static
side.
A very refined intellect can perceive aesthetic value. The solution of a
mathematical theorem can express beauty just like the Sistine Chapel. A
mathematician perceives it, and through a rigorous and arduous logical
job is just following a Dynamic intuition.
This leads immediately to the never ending diatribe between Bo and me. IMO
the SOLAQI (Subject/Object Logic As Q-Intellect) idea fails as it considers,
just like the IQ tests, only the static side of our intellectual
potentiality.
In fact, Bo, when you argue that it's impossible to put the MOQ idea within
the logic as it's impossible for a box to contain itself, you are just using
logic! So, if you also are inside the box, how can you talk about what's
outside? This is only apparently a paradox: the image of the "box" is valid
only (maybe) at the inorganic level.
For example, the "Desktop" of my PC contains all the software, the
"c:\windows" directory included. In it, I find that the desktop! I can map
my hard drive in many ways, and all the ways can be good maps. You could say
that my Desktop contains only "links" to the real objects.... but also these
"real" objects are links to something that is in some way supported by the
hard disk. And if you go more and more deep to study this phenomenon, you
can only find an incomprehensible array of "0" and "1".
Is Windows magic? No. Is it illogical or irrational? (Yes, but not for
this:-)
No, it's simply that when you leave the inorganic level, you can't
apply the same logic that is perfect to build bridges and airplanes. It is
so for the social level, as Pirsig claims about anthropology, and even more
it's so for the intellectual level.
Going back to IQ tests and the measurements of intelligence, I'd argue that
the "value" of IQ tests is merely social, as Denis pointed out:
DENIS:
> Big business needed methods to grade and test the people it would employ,
> and because of the huge numbers of workers one had to manage, the old
> methods of personal appraisal were no longer workable.
This supports my idea that the logic/rational aspects of intellect have been
in times developed just thank to social needs. The society has selected
people in which these aspects were more evident, as these are good, as said,
to build bridges and airplanes. My conclusion is that IQ tests have some
social value, while have a low intellectual value. They can just measure the
social potentiality of intelligence.
So, is it possible to measure in some way the intellectual potentiality of
intelligence? Johannes recently offered this interesting suggestion. He
defines a system as "elvaleach" or shortly "elvale", that means: Elements
valuing each other.
Assuming the social level as system, IQ tests have the purpose to select
elements with the capability to add/receive value to/from the system.
Following this line and assuming the intellectual level as system, the
intellectual value of one's intelligence should be measured by its
contribution to the total value of the system (that is, IMO, a deeper
comprehension of reality and a wider free diffusion of those insights).
Is it possible such a measurement? Or, that's more important, is it useful?
(maybe a good thread for the next month?)
tks
Marco
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:28 BST