Hi Elephant, Magnus, Marco, Bo etc., etc.
Elephant, I have reading your prolific output, and seeing you say many
things I have tried to say before you joined the forum. We even see a
resurgence of the same arguments with which Bo and Magnus attacked me
back then. I value the consistency, even if it does lead to going round
in seemingly endless circles.
My main aim in this post is to respectfully present my view of the
differing viewpoints. However, let me start with a word of warning to
Elephant:
Don't try Magnus's "iron on the toe" experiment.
He had me try that a couple of years ago and I regret listening to
him;-).
MARCO
> IMO, THE SPLIT OF EXPERIENCE IN FOUR LEVEL IS WHOLLY INTELLECTUAL. A
> ghost, just like the gravity law. I mean, it's a good intellectual
> trick used by Pirsig to explain universe.
I think that Marco's statement accurately reflects my position, and see
that Elephant concurs.
ELEPHANT:
<<<The way I suggest that we understand this is that All static patterns
are intellectual patterns: this is what Marco is saying. Biological,
Social, Inorganic: these are all divisions WITHIN the intellectual
level. This is not to say that a dormouse is an intellectual, but just
to say that a dormouse is an ntellctual pattern - one arrived at by
intellects, viz biologists.>>>
To some extent, this is a restatement of my arguments that Intellect
should not be regarded as a level in the same sense as the other 3
(see http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0049.html and
following discussion).
The point is that the other levels develop by increasing COMPLEXITY.
Intellect is an ABSTRACTION.
MAGNUS (to Elephant)
<<<I see now where you got the idea that intellect/non-intellect maps
exactly to the static/dynamic split. But please don't do that, I hate to
say it but if I don't, Bo will. You're getting awfully close to the
mind/matter dichotomy here and we all know where that leads.>>>
Magnus is right that considering "intellect" as somehow different brings
us close to the mind/matter dichotomy.
However, I don't see that simple denial solves the problem.
ELEPHANT
>Moreover, I would say that in it's struggle with
>it's own static patterns intellect will *look* like a pattern amoughst
>others, and like a competing level amougst others.
This is entirely right. Since the MoQ is an intellectual construct,
intellect gets caught in a recursive loop when it tries to define
itself. This will be part of any philosophy where intellect is
considered a part of the reality it describes. I have no easy answers;
me might consider "non-intellectual" philosophy, but that sounds like an
oxymoron to me.
MAGNUS
<<<No! Now, you're back into experiencer=mind vs. experienced
world=matter.>>>
Yes we are, but it doesn't mean much without proper definitions of mind
and matter. Descartes certainly has no monopoly on this, but I don't
like Pirsig's version either ("Mind" = Intellect + Social levels,
"Matter" = Inorganic + Biological levels). However, we can be a bit
clearer on what we mean by "experiencer" and "experienced".
MAGNUS
<<<The really big jump to make when moving from a SOM view to the MoQ is
to realise that SOM "things" are made of many levels at once. Not only
that, they are often made of different many levels depending on the
observer.>>>
Yes!!! That's something I said in my very early days in the forum (post
#2, 14 May 1998, http://www.moq.org/old_lilasquad/9805/0023.html ):
<<<
Pirsig hasn't really done away with the SO at all, but has incorporated
it into his MOQ. If we consider subject as the observer and object as
the observed (things that happen), Pirsig has created multiple
non-exclusive subjects. The observer observes at the molecular level, or
is an organism observing at the biological level, or a society observing
at the social level etc. Thus subject and object become relative terms.
>>>
Looking at this again, I now see Bo's SOLAQI idea come back in a new
light.
The MoQ is an intellect construct that sets up SO patterns to be
"valued" by different observers at each level.
The ways molecules appear to "value" each other are
"inorganic" patterns.
The ways organisms appear to value each other are "biological" patterns.
Ditto for the social level, and we can probably come up with something
suitable if we absolutely insist on an intellectual level;-)
But, WHO is making all the decisions in carving up all these
observer/observed systems in the various levels. It is Intellect in the
guise of Bodvar's SOLAQI. The only argument I ever had with Bo's
proposal was his claim that this represented the whole of intellect - I
would prefer a wider view of intellect that has additional attributes.
Thanks everyone for the discussion and the stimulation.
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST