Hi Bo and Foci,
As usual lately, Bo and I don't agree. Let's join in debate.
skutvik@online.no a Ècrit :
> Saying so it may sound strange to ask Jaap if he can manage one
> last post in which he analyzes the nature-nurture riddle even more
> directly, preferable with practical examples Is it possible to apply
> Pirsig's SOM-MOQ transformation formulae (inorg.+org.=object.
> soc.+intell.=subject) to the problem, or is the n-n a SOM-generated
> "platypus" in the first place?
>
Not exactly a platypus, since SOM in the end gives answers similar to
the MOQ answer : both nature and nuture. But, SOM has a problem with
nuture : it can't grasp it. Nuture is made of silly words, advices,
experiences, and a zillion other things SOM cannot classify or
understand, much less reach a consensus on. Nuture is about teaching
social and intellectual values, and SOM hasn't got the slightest idea
what these might be, because it does SEE values. It's value-blind the
same way dogs are color-blind. So while not a full-fledged platypus, the
n/n problem is still a major pain in the butt. :-)
> Perhaps Jaap has done nothing BUT analyze this and won't
> understand what I ask for, but as he promised to survey my
> "adrenalin" example, that may be the test specimen.
>
> My only doubt if you and I misunderstand each other correctly :-) is
> when you wrote:
>
> > You're absolutely right, that's why I wrote that SOM and MOQ are equal
> > and that MOQ is believed top be better by MOQ-believers. Since a level
> > cannot see a higher level it's not possible for the intellectual
> > level to say whether MOQ or SOM is a representative for a higher level
> > - the edge between evolution and degeneration is small - and that's
> > why I use "believe". Of course I say MOQ is higher....etc
>
> When I say that the MOQ is of "higher value" I mean a budding
> new 5th level, consequently the two aren't equal; SOM is of
> intellect (or the intellect!). You are right that a level cannot see a
> level above itself (other that destructive chaos), but as we - the
> believers -DO recognize the MOQ it means that we have
> trespassed intellect's perimeter.
>
You mean I've reached the fifth level ? How coooool !!! Hey, how comes I
don't shine like a Buddha for all those idiots crawling in the base
intellectual dust, while *I* am soaring among the high reaches of the
Fifth Level ? :o)
Seriously, Bo, how do you expect us to believe this ?
MOQ is revolutionary, OK. But not THAT revolutionary, be serious. MOQ
*might* be the machine-code between intellect and the new level (I've
said something like that in my last post of October, but no one has
commented it :( ), because it doesn't repose on pure belief. Or rather,
it does but it's also aware that it does and justify itself by : "I
*prefer* those beliefs". I agree that this is an infinitely better
metaphysics to have, but I'm not convinced I've yet reached a new
spiritual level... Although I wish I had ! ;)
It just doesn't feel right. Look at what a revolution the birth of
biology was, and how the creation of social structure has fundamentaly
changed the composition of the ecosystem. The last such revolution was
the birth of Notions, of Words, and look how this has changed everything
for us, at the most basic level. The brain had to develop a whole new
layer (the neo-cortex, sole possession of the human race) to cope with
such a revolution. And now, you want to put the MOQ on par with such
fundamental changes in the paradigm !
I mean, I *really* like the MOQ, it has changed my whole outlook on
life, but I don't think the fifth level is going to be so easily, not to
mention so quickly (!), attained. At best, it shows the way.
> Or, more correctly, Phaedrus of ZMM was the trespasser. Until he
> came along intellect (as subject-object METAPHYSICS) was "all
> there is" and it was forbidden to approach intellect's borders. It was
> called insanity to question it's validity - and it WAS insanity. I see
> Nietszche as one who didn't return from an excursion there. Now,
> in year ?? AP (after Pirsig) a small bridgehead is established
> beyond intellect.
>
"All there is" ? OK, old discussion back on track : no, we weren't the
only ones to have intellect. No, we didn't invent it. No, the mythos is
NOT purely social : it's a metaphysics with explanatory powers that has
in some parts of the world be overtaken by a new, more dynamic
metaphysic, SOM. While it's going the way the dinosaurs went, it had/has
some intelligent messages to deliver, hopefully before MTV, Disney and
Coca-Cola wipe it out the surface of the planet.
You said we shouldn't look at intellect as a "mind" of sorts. I agree, I
told you that deductive and reasoning capabilities weren't in the field
of intellect. Only symbolic representations and the meta-structures
(metaphysics) in which they organize can really be called intellect
under the MOQ. The "mind" of SOM is only a biological hardware upon
which such things are run. But, in my view, the MOQ in a new, better
software. And that's all, and that's already a lot.
Saying SOM is intellect leaves me wondering what am I doing now,
thinking about the MOQ. I gave examples (I hope coherent ones) of how
the MOQ can give answers *without* resorting to S/O. They seem to me
like are in the Intellectual playing field, not in a new one. The belief
in Truth superseded the belief in gods, only to be (I hope) dethroned
now by the belief in an evolutionary Intellect, lead by DQ. But the
first "ghosts" of Man were already Intellectual ones. Not "Bad Ones", as
I've heard, but old and antiquated ones.
How does the belief in spirits comes to be social in your view ? It is a
way of explaining the world, not a social more. In a way, your
"primitives" social men ante-Plato believed in revealed Truth. They
thought only visions, communing with spirits or gods would give them the
Truth. Don't you see how this is close to the MOQ saying answers are
found when we encounter DQ ? That's revealed Truth too. So where's the
difference ? What makes their way so social, and ours so above Intellect
? Please explain that to me. Until this is out of our way, I won't be
satisfied. I cannot rob those people of their right to be called
Intelligent without a Good reason.
> I still wonder how many it is who really understand the enormity of
> declaring the subject-object division invalid. There was a time when
> I doubted if this was wise. Not it's tenability, but as above: it looked
> like chaos. But, I was hooked and not able to return to the SOM
> even if I wanted to. However the SOLAQI brought me great relief.
> The S-O division (seen as intellect) is the highest static value and
> the quality idea is some movement beyond. The ugly chaos turned
> into a higher level.
The S/O division can be left out of any MOQ equation, because it doesn't
need it. DQ, SQ and its four levels is all that's needed to give
reasonable answers. To keep S/O in the field only muddies the water, by
building an unnecessary bridge between SOM and MOQ. This ensures the
former will denounces MOQ as "another fancy pants philosophical idea no
one really needs, since it agrees that being objective is to be
intellectual". It will make the MOQ look like a new age thing that you
can use if you want to reach the "Fifth Level of evolution, you know,
above Intellect !" (stupid ecstatic grin)
I'm caricaturing, but you can be sure I won't be only one, and *I* am on
YOUR side, so figure out !
The MOQ is strange enough without giving SOM cultural immune system new
weapons to kick us out.
>
> Not yet established. Our time and our effort can be compared to
> the Greek experience (seen as the advent of intellect/SOM)
Grrrr...
> when a
> small clique fought for what they saw as the only direction the
> future could take to free itself from the social bonds (the Greeks
> and the millennia that followed in their steps did not use these
> MOQ terms of course). The only way OUR future can free itself
> from intellect's bonds is the MOQ.
>
Sorry if the tone of this post is a bit, let's say agressive, but I hope
to provoke answers in the next two days. Time to make a stand, I say.
Be good
Denis
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST