In alphabetical order:
Hi David B, Marco, Keith, Ken, Tor and all Focusers.
DAVID B
My humblest apologies, how could I mix you up with someone
else? This message (Oct.6) shows your true quality. I will go into it
tomorrow.
KEN
Great to read your grand cosmic sweep. You make some most
appropriate and thought-provoking points. See my comments
tomorrow.
MARCO
You are hereby canonized. Two times did I put on the water kettle
to make coffee and each time it boiled itself empty because I was
so absorbed in your piece (it is luckily one sturdy kettle from Ken
Clark's copper smith :) My review will appear tomorrow.
TOR
Warmly welcome to the MF. Comparatively Norway is Pirsigland
no 1. Re. your entry something "psychic" must be going on. Last
night I looked into some remote part of my computer where I
seldom go and found your private greeting (from when? It wasn't
dated, but what about fall 98?) and who appeared today? See my
review tomorrow.
[If I sound like a teacher reviewing/correcting pupil's essays it's
quite unintentional].
..................................................................................................
KEITH (the only one to whom I had something pre-prepared)
The fifth level issue is hard to come to grips with, but as you say
ALL levels are tough to define the moment one starts to try to pin it
down. Yet, as you also say, it is laid down in the MOQ
cornerstone.In a letter to me of Sep.97 Pirsig said:"
Diedrich Aerts, the professor of physics who invited me to
Belgium, also expressed the view that in physics today
there is great attention paid to the idea of a quantum level
of existence that existed before the Big Bang. He also
suggested a sub-organic level similar to Renselle's so
there may be something to it. But when Renselle talks
about a static level above the intellectual I think he is
talking about a future possibility. It may be that at some
time in the future such a level may emerge, but I don't
think it's useful to talk about it now as if it already exists.
The principal political problem of the MOQ is that it is too
far from the normal thinking of most people. The addition
of these two extra hypothetical levels to the four actual
ones seems to take it even further out and decrease its
social acceptability."
At the time of the reception (of the letter) I was a little disappointed
by Pirsig's acceptance of the sub-inorganic level idea because of
my clash with Doug Renselle in the early days of the LS. His
tables with all sorts of weird quantum-inspired stuff I still find
completely at odds with the MOQ. However, a level ABOVE
Intellect is - as said - a natural outcome of the MOQ postulates.
What Pirsig says about its social acceptance is of course correct,
also about its futuristic nature, but we are just testing it within our
closed circle.
I found your references and summary of the Cybernetics
documents very interesting. Particularly do I agree with the
conclusion that a 5th level will have a control/constraint function
regarding Intellect.
Keith, I don't know - or remember - your attitude towards my
modification of Q-intellect, but control of a SOLAQ-Intellect is wildly
different from control of a MIND-intellect. The latter would simply be
impossible to control, (Meine Gedanken sind Frei. Isn't that so
Johannes?) while subject/object-logic can be checked by another
way of thinking - not easily but possible.
> COULD WE EVEN RECOGNIZE IT? (HEREIN LIES A STRAY THOUGHT)
> Even if there were a higher level, would we be able to talk about it
> meaningfully? We are using language, the 'DNA of intellect', to
> describe intellect, but can intellect intelligently represent
> something at a higher level of organization than itself? I'm not sure.
> Lao Tzu says "the Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao" and I
> think that might apply here, too. All we could to is call this next
> level, "the Great Tao", "Dynamic Quality", "The Good", or "God" and
> stop with those single symbols for the great (conceptually) unknown
> above us ...
Good! Of course a fifth level will be good - in its time it will be true -
that's the whole point. At the present time it's volatile, its only
asset is that it FEELS right.
About language's role. It has its roots way back in the social level,
spans the social-intellectual schism, "carries" the Intellect and will
surely continue into a L5. The patterns of the lower levels are part
of all higher levels. Inorganic is low down the base of Intellect.
No need to loose oneself into mysticism even if we speak of things
beyond Intellect. A 5L will - in its time - be as static as static
comes and its base will be Intellect, but that intellect will be
different from the somish mind.
I am not speaking to you now Keith, but there is a tendency to be
mystical when turning to this topic. A superintellect in a "Giant"
sense, as if we are domestic animals that don't know that we are
about to be fattened for the slaughter-house for instance,
something that Johannes still plays with in his last post. But this is
not what Pirsig talks about in LILA. The said metaphor was meant
to demonstrate the social levels supremacy over Biology, but in a
MOQ context we ARE ALL VALUES, we KNOW what it is to BE
an animal, but also how to surpass Biology. As well as being
Intellectual value surpassing Society, and will KNOW a fifth levels
as well: All levels are "Giants" to the one below. Another MOQ
postulate that may look as contradicting this is what we have
agreed upon earlier: "A level doesn't recognize any level above
itself". That is correct. When focussed in Biology we are oblivious
of anything else (extreme sensations pain or lust for instance), so
is a football hooligan or a patriot when focussed in extreme
emotional states. Likewise, when a person is is deep in a
scientific study SOM's "objectivity" of that field fills her/his
universe.
Well, this is as much as anyone can take.
Thanks for your time.
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:36 BST