Hello Denis and all Foci
Sun, 28 Nov 1999 you wrote (on the Nature-Nurture dilemma)
> 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. :-)
Yes, but I find this a bit feeble if you don't mind. That the SOM
don't see values (as the basic building block) is true, it does
however recognize them as part of the subjective half which
alternates with the objective in being regarded as the REAL reality;
the other a mere "trailer". This is what creates the nature-nurture
riddle. All somists cries to heaven that both sides cooperate in our
make-up, but can't explain how mind influences matter and vice
versa. While in the MOQ there is no such barrier.
> 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)
That's only because you haven't reached a full understanding of the
MOQ <grin> But why must you shine or acquire a halo and such
spiritual signs? No need for that.
> 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 ! ;)
Denis, you seem to waver a bit here, and I bless you for that! At
least I am glad that you see how revolutionary the MOQ can be if
its full implications are brought to bear. Funny that I did not spot
your MOQ-as-the-machine-code-between-the intellect-and-a-new-
level. That is exactly pot on! I myself waver a little between that and
the MOQ as a full-fledged level.
> 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 !
Again I am pleased that you see what's at stake. That you find it
too much to swallow is perfectly OK. However, you keep lapsing
back to intellect as mind (words, language, thinking) It is that too,
but it's "general" value is distinguishing what is true, independent of
beliefs and myths. I liked - and have adopted - your view of
language as the machine code between society and intellect, so
why not stick to it yourself. Intellect as a meta-realm of "thinking
as such" is something impossible to transcend.
> 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.
A fifth level so quickly attained ....! Well, that's the only point where
I feel I am on thin ice. But is it quickly attained? You yourself may
be the proof of it's difficulty. You see its virtue, but won't accept it.
And if not you...then who? Even Pirsig did not see what problem it
was supposed to solve, I admit that.
> "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.
I think we agree if you enlarge your "social" concept. As said, the
"ancient ones" spoke and discussed and
made up great stories to explain what existence was all about. But
there were no "free-thinkers" who pointed to their mythology as
being "just magic nonsense". The social level was that era's
"metaphysics". ALL THERE WAS.
> 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.
How can you agree with me and the next moment say the things
about ......."Only symbolic representations and the meta-structures
....etc. To me that sounds like the arch-definition of mind. What
you say of mind of SOM as "biological hardware" is not correct. If
anything it is the software.
Reasoning is very much the intellect ...of my MOQ! Can you
imagine a stone age man reasoning about the phenomena. Looking
at a shooting star for instance and coming to the
conclusion that it must be an object entering the atmosphere at
supersonic speed...etc! No, it was all part of the pending myth
whatever it was.
> Saying SOM is intellect leaves me wondering what am I doing now,
> thinking about the MOQ.
When you evaluate an idea like the MOQ which is outside
SO/intellect's borders and deem it a mirage, you have pulled back
behind SO/intellect's safe perimeters. If you find it irresistible and
walks out for it you are in some dynamic state. When you have
reached it you are at new STATIC level where it feels like the most
natural thing.
> 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
When intellect hits upon a (SO derived) new truth, that truth will
play itself out in society, and have implications there. Likewise, a
movement beyond intellect will have grave implications for intellect.
Play itself out in intellect.
> . 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.
You start the above in the most impeccable manner. The belief in
TRUTH (the objective as different from the subjective) superseded
the belief in gods (the common social myths). Dethroned by the
belief in an evolutionary intellect. (evolution may supersede intellect
which is the MOQ!) Exactly. But then you lapse back to the meta-
intellect which cannot be superseded in any possible way: only
new ghosts come and push out the old ones) Everything is in that
sort of intellect!
> 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.
Again, the different definitions of intellect mars our discussion.
Yes, belief in spirits was a way of explaining the world (still is
among the latter-day fundamentalists). The myth was a guide how
the people of that culture (a tribe or a whole people) were supposed
to act to be accepted socially. The story of how the gods came to
be, where they lived and how they created mankind etc was a
necessary part of the myth, and that was accepted as revealed
truth, but as said: there were no sceptics around that questioned
its "scientific" value.
> 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 ?
I do indeed see this proto-moq connections. That is why the MOQ,
seen a movement beyond intellect, necessarily will tend to join
forces with social value, just as intellect does with biology. If/when
the Quality is to establish itself as a new level of evolution it will be
the new revealed truth, while the SO-intellect will be seen as a high
value, yet subordinate to the new revelation.
> 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.
As said they did not question their myth in light of the subject-
object point of view. Did not put up instruments to "trap" the gods
as they weaved in and out among the mortals. The intellectual
watertight SO bulkhead between a spiritual and a corporeal realm
was not invented. Of course prehistoric man (and modern day
fundamentalists) were intelligent no doubt, but they weren't
intellectuals in the Quality sense.
> 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.
The value of the SO division can't be rejected wholesalely. How can
we go on without it and be civilized? Doing away with it (without
finding a MOQ place for it) would mean a slide back to Medieval -
social level - age. Seeing SO as the intellectual level (stripped of
its metaphysical M) "domesticates" it, and it can be handled safely
as a useful beast of burden.
SOM-MOQ bridges are most needed. You know Pirsig's own? He
was the pioneer and just erected a footbridge, I have tried to create
a "stronger" one that can stand the weight of the many to come.
All right it sounds megalomaniac :-). Perhaps I am wrong. You
know the weak and strong interpretation of quantum physics. The
latter turns QM into a more esoteric inpregnable world of its own.
Perhaps that is what the SOLAQI will do to the 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 !
Wouldn't it rather be tempting? The MOQists can be said to be
super-intellectuals :-)
Thanks for reading this.
Bo
PS:
> 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.
Not at all Denis, I love to duel wity you.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:37 BST