Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Tue, 9 Sep 1997 10:11:45 +0100
Magnus wrote many interesting things about his wrestling with the Quality
idea. I feel I am guilty for some of his difficulties so I'll try to do
well again.
First. There is always the "Rosetta Stone" effect: (The deciphering of the
hieroglyphs when a stone disk was found which contained a Greek text
alongside the Egyptian signs) Us, the pirsigeans have been alone -
philosophically - for so long and have thought ourselves into our private
troughs so that when we encounter others and compare notes it looks as
inscrutable as hieroglyphs until one finds a short line of parallel
thoughts and it opens up.
I will comment your paragraphs as I have numbered them from 1 -18. Hope it
will be possible to identify what goes where.
Re.no 2. I hope what I wrote to Jason will throw more light upon the
Intellectual level/dimension in general. The sentence:..then we have the
Intellect that enables us to walk...etc", was a bit imprecise. To walk is
no intellectual feat, nor is talk in sense of producing sound. To function
as a living organism is all organic value. What you obviously mean is the
unique human capacity of symbolic language (static Intellectual patterns).
Re.no 3. Here I had a hard time, but the Rosetta stone finally hit me over
the head. Ah, you mean (my) definition of Intellectual value as "individual
freedom" which - to you - looks identical to Organic level value!!!. I
admit that it can be misunderstood, and shame on me. You see the motive was
this. We have the manifestations of the different levels: Inorganic values
manifest as "matter", Organic values as "life" and Societal values as
"societies", but what is the manifestation of the Intellectual values?
Pisig himself used "culture", but I found it difficult to distinguish
between the enormous cultural "common intellectual values" area, and the
"subdue life's values" which is the most basic criterion of a society in a
MOQ sense. That's why I tampered with his original teachings and invented
"Freedom" as the manifestation of Intellect. (I'm a sinner too) and it
resulted in this problem. Good Grief! No, the Organic values of
proliferation and growth have nothing to do with the liberty of the human
individual as a carrier of Intellectual values ("Value of self" would have
been better perhaps). (Nos, 4 and 5 go in the same trend)
No.6. You have a point here, and I did ponder this myself. Whatever living
thing you start to "dissect" there is no end downwards. Even the cell has
subunits inside itself, and even the tissue of the cells are made up of
amino acids strings composed of.... ad infinitum. To start making this into
societies leads nowhere; It is the very same blind alley as our original
discussion over levels below the Inorganic. Look to my space dimension
metaphor. There are countless ways of combining and yet they keep their
unique quality. An animal is Inorganic and Organic - perhaps a certain
impact of Social values to the extent the flock behaviour prevails while a
human being is of ALL value levels.
No 7. The Social value patterns must not be identified with any particular
form of society. It manifests as everything from the family upwards to the
modern state. It is the value that transcends and subdues the individual
greed for the sake of a community, be it two people or an empire. Then you
go on to say ....We are not supposed to have a clue about society.....!
That took a while to understand, but of course the Organic (level of)
values don't, they pursue their goals as vigorously and singlemindedly as
the earthworm's, but a strong social level thwarts their relentless lust.
Humorously: the organic Magnus wants every woman he sees, but the social
Magnus behaves!. However, in danger we may behave "as animals" (also we may
not and give our lives for the common cause if the social value overrides
life's). Also, a human "vegetable" will eat and do the things that keep the
body going endlessly. This level is invisible through our Social and
Intellectual layers, but it keeps us alive every second from birth to
death.
8 and 9 are OK.
10: OK if you men "seen as".
11: The Social value of cooperation plunges far far back in evolutionary
terms, and pervades the Primate's species - apes form rather complicated
societies. However primitive "we" have always been social beings - even
stronger in the days of cave dwellings when it dominated completely.
However, when symbolic language entered picture the first cornerstone was
laid for Intellect's later emergence, manifestation and final dominance.
12: You are perfectly right.
13: Here you start promising but go a little bit astray, if I understand
you at all: please elaborate.
14 and 15: This I think we have covered (see 6), but you can of course give
your imagination free rein about other forms of societies. I think an
anthill or a beehive is a society in a sense.
16: I thought at first you were teasing me, but then you go on in
accordance with the MOQ. Good!
17 and 18. You raise the prospect of an eventual new emerging static level.
This is really mind-at-the-end stuff that I don't dare to speculate about,
but the dynamic forces don't rest ever. That much is for sure.
PS.
You delivered a commentary to my Jason letter. You liked my dimension
analogue, but found it lacking in that the spatial dimensions aren't
dependent upon the next. Well perhaps not mathematically, but a
one-dimension reality is a bit incomplete, so is a two-dimensional one; we
live in three-dimensional space after all (Four if time is added!).
But Magnus, I wish you would read LILA once more. That Intellect arises
from community in the most "social" sense (not from a community of brain
cells) is indisputable I have a sinking feeling of you harbouring a mind
model of the good ol' subject/object kind, thinking of humans as walking
around with a central computer on top of their necks from whose orifices
the sense organs receive signals and transmits them to a little
intelligence monitoring objective reality OUT THERE. I am not mocking, but
even I who haven't studied artificial intelligence know that this model is
being left, and the Metaphysics of Quality goes in front by even skipping
mind "as such" altogether. (see my answer to Jason). Intellect in a MOQ
sense is a slow rise FROM society. There is no free-floating intelligence
independent of society (it is the tragedy of SOM thinking not seeing this)
To harp a bit more on it: Look what silly things the idea of a "mind" in
the sense of "objective awareness" leads to. It is now known that ALL
creatures sleep. Consequently there is a state of turned off-ness different
from turned on-ness. A sleeping fish(!) must necessarily wake up to a
reality different from sleep. Of course: IT WAKES UP TO A FISH REALITY just
as we wake up to a human reality, but the Biblical/Descartean notion that
humans once upon the time woke up from mindless slumber and "saw the wold
as it is", is completely foreign to the core of the MOQ. Please let this
sink in.
What the first "thinkers" thought was wholly shaped by their social
background. How can it be otherwise? You don't find a particle physicist
among the tribes of central Amazonas, their societies don't value that kind
of activity, but their brains are every bit as developed as Einstein's. And
you don't find a head hunter or a cannibal at the university of Lund! Why?
Of course because our societies are shaped by thousands of years of a
religion (the major social value carrier) that don't value such activities.
Greetings from Bodvar.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:41:55 CEST