MARCO REPLIES TO ELEPHANT FIRST POST (ON LATE, SORRY)
Elephant, Jonathan, Magnus, 3WD and all
I've been off for some times... so only now I re-enter the discussion.
My initial post of this month generated many comments, and few
misunderstandings about my position. Especially by Mr. Elephant and
"old" Jonathan.
------------------------------
Dear Elephant:
>
> MARCO WROTE:
> > IMO, THE SPLIT OF EXPERIENCE IN FOUR LEVEL IS WHOLLY INTELLECTUAL.
[...]
>
> ELEPHANT:
> Well, that must be right. After all it is an important part of
> MOQ that the splitting up of experience is something done in our
> language, and that the mystic reality is something continuous
> and undivided (Dynamic Quality: Northrop's aesthetic continuum).
I think Magnus answered to your points very well and I think I widely
agree with him.
MAGNUS:
> reality doesn't fit such a division.
> Take for example the time of the universe before we showed up.....
[...]
> I think the error most make when they try to make level divisions, is
to not make
> the static/dynamic split *first*.
Magnus, I think I'm with you, as you will read in my next words, written
before reading yours!!!
A clarification. Quality is Reality. Dynamic Quality is not reality: DQ
is the cutting edge of experience. Static Quality is not reality: SQ is
the experienced. I mean: when I say that intellect splits experience, so
that it creates static intellectual patterns, I don't mean that Reality
(=Quality) is continuous and undivided... and mystic. It "is"
discontinuous and "interacts" continuously. For example: when we say
"CAT" we are pointing to an intellectual static pattern of "cat" (let's
call it "I-CAT"). Of course the real "CAT" is not a static intellectual
pattern, but it does not mean that it is continuous and undivided.
If the "I-CAT" does not match the "CAT" it's because of the limit of
intellect, but my theory is that real entities "are" statically
(according to their static nature) and "interact" dynamically (according
to their dynamic nature), as they are always and necessarily both DQ and
SQ simultaneously.
So that a CAT "is" a cat (divided and discontinuous) as its mother was a
cat, not as I point to it as a "I-CAT". But my beloved CAT becomes a
special static "I-CAT" as we interact according to our respective
dynamic nature.
>
> ... of all the 4 levels and the divisions which they picture, we do
> find one particularly interesting: Intellect. The reason that I
> find this level interesting is that the Intellect/Non Intellect
> dichotomy is strongly connected to the Static/Dynamic
> dichotomy, which is a dichotomy of a more fundamental
> kind, because it is not a division within
> patterns, but attached to the division between all
> patterns and the mystically real.
hmmm... I disagree. For what I've said, reality (=Quality) seems to me
not exactly mystical and undivided. The interactions between real
entities (=SQ+DQ) are interactions between the respective dynamic
nature of those entities. This is the Quality Event: the meeting of
dynamic natures. And this event is the only "real" contact point. Then
static patterns operate in order to handle the undivided experience
according to the famous four levels. So that the eventual intellectual
self creates intellectual entities (ideas, concepts and so on); the
eventual social self creates social entities... and so on throughout the
four levels.
I don't like the sentence "reality is dynamic, while concepts are
static". In it, I read a dichotomy Reality/Concepts, very similar to the
matter/mind one. And a contradiction: if so, concepts are not real; or,
if they are real, they are not dynamic..... or reality is not static.
The solution is: "perception is dynamic, while entities "are"
statically, and "interact" dynamically within the four possible
environments. This is a valid model throughout the four levels.
So the MOQ main split is DQ/SQ. Then the secondary split is SQ into four
levels.
What are those splits? As said, intellectual "entities" created by
R.M.Pirsig. Investigation of reality, and part of reality themselves.
They also "are" statically , and "interact" dynamically.
BTW, I agree with 3WD, static means stable, not fixed. In facts the
Italian version of Lila translates "pattern" with "configurazione
stabile" (=stable configuration).
> This is
> something Marco's comments have jogged in my memory, and I will try to
> explain what I mean. There seems to be some disagreement about
> where to draw the boundaries of 'intellect' (I'm referring to
> discussions with Platt in the 'other species' thread on MD) - and this
> is what we would expect and allow for if 'intellect' was itself just
> another intellectual pattern.
> But if we could show that 'intellect' somehow maps precisely onto the
> Dynamic/Static split itself, that would give us a purer clearer notion
> of intellect, and also one that corresponds to the real structure of
> the world, rather than being merely a conveinient falsification of
> mystic reality.
The real revolution of the MOQ is that intellectual patterns are not a
falsification of reality, as they are real themselves. They are
investigations of reality.... when intellect investigates itself, we
call it self-consciousness. (wow! that's great :-)
> 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 intellctual pattern - one arrived
> at by intellects, viz biologists.
NO! I was not saying this: IMO the intellectual I-DORMOUSE, like my
I-CAT, is not merely discontinuous and static. Likewise, the dormouse,
like the cat, is not merely continuous and dynamic. If the 4 level
division is intellectual, it does not mean that reality is not divided.
At the contrary, it's very arguable that a very similar division is
real, or our intellectual "entity" known as MOQ is not matching reality;
it would mean it's not good.
In conclusion, by saying that:
"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 was just trying to say that the MOQ, as every intellectual model of
reality, could be wrong. But if it's good, reality is like the model.
Actually, it's like the gravity law. A ghost, of course, but it does not
mean that the phenomenon of gravitation, explained by this ghost does
not exist, or belongs to a mystic undifferentiated continuum.
-----------------------------------------
And now, few shots:
MAGNUS:
There are lots of perfectly obvious examples of higher level patterns
that are completely dead. One is right in front of you right now. The
words you're reading are a snapshot of my intellectual patterns. They
were dynamic in my head but once I transferred them to the mail, they
became static. They're still intellectual patterns though. They are
ideas.
MARCO:
Here there's a little disagreement. I would say that your ideas were
dynamic while in your head they were forming... then they are static but
also interact dynamically with the readers. They are DQ and SQ
simultaneously. When the reader perceive them, at the moment of cutting
edge of perception, they are dynamic. In fact, I perceive their dynamic
side. What do you think?
ELEPHANT:
IMO the static/dynamic split is the split between discrete and therefore
conceptualised entities on the one hand, and the aesthetic continuum on
the other.
If I am right about this, then the static world is the conceptualised
world. IMO this means that the static is the intellectual: that which
depends on intellects. Concepts don't just apply themselves. So I
posit an intellectual/non-intellectual split that exactly corresponds to
the static/dynamic split, because I think that it is just the static
dynamic split, differently expressed.
MARCO:
Let me know. Isn't this "Aesthetic Continuum" an intellectual static
concept? However: by saying that concepts are static you don't prove
that what's not a concept is necessarily dynamic.
-----------------
ELEPHANT:
[Pirsig's] mysticism is the idea that what is fundamentally real
(dynamic quality) cannot be rightly expressed in any linguistic
expression.
Language is something other than the mystically real, it is the
something by
which we arrive at discrete entities: statements, theories.
MARCO:
IMO Pirsig points to Quality as source of reality. While D and S are
properties of the real entities generated by this source. The only
mystic moment is the Quality Event, the event when the D sides of
entities interact. When all the static pattern are (just for that while)
abandoned. Just a moment. Then the experience becomes real (generated
by the Quality Event) and therefore both Static and capable of new
Dynamic interactions.
-------------------
JONATHAN:
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.
MARCO:
I don't see the problem of intellect being part of reality. As I wrote
above it is part of reality. If not, it is not real. Or you have two
"realities" and you fall in the mind/reality dichotomy. There is no
"loop" when intellect tries to define itself. As this attempt, as every
attempt of investigation on reality, will generate an imperfect map. I
wrote some times ago to Bo this simple consideration:
<<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.>>
What I was trying to say is that the "logic" you are using in your
"recursivity" example, must not be applied to intellectual entities like
you do in the case of matter. My concepts can contain a map of your
concepts, and your concepts can contain a map of my concepts. No
recursivity. Just maps.
thanks
Marco.
P.s.
Now that I offered my replies, surely I'll get new comments... But let's
remember that we have the target of a static definition of the four
levels. Is there someone else offering short definitions? And is there
someone ready for the final summary?
I repeat mine. Is there someone who wants discuss these?
- A level is a level of experience.
- The split of experience into four levels is a Pirsig's intellectual
trick. If it's good, it matches reality.
- Every level is identified by:
a. A BASIC VALUE
b. A "CLASS" OF STATIC PATTERNS MADE OF THE SAME BASIC VALUE
c. A TYPICAL PATTERNS' BEHAVIOR
d. A ENVIRONMENT
e. A ERA
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:29 BST