Doug Renselle (renselle@on-net.net)
Wed, 11 Mar 1998 14:11:09 +0100
Hi Bo and TLS!
See comments below -
Bodvar Skutvik wrote:
>
> Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:22:49 -0500
> Doug Renselle (>>) replied to Hugo's (>>>) "Rambling on intellect and
> life".
>
> > Hugo Fjelsted Alroe ended his fine piece thus:
>
Hugo's earlier comments:
> > > MoQ is on the path towards the good life, intellect and all, this
> > > I do believe.
>
Doug's comments:
> > This is what we MoQites KNOW about MoQ, viscerally, intellectually,
> > and spiritually!
>
> > Pirsig was so harmed by his quasi-intellectual persecutors that he
> > shows extreme negative attitudes towards their SOM doctrine, with
> > SOM's tiny mindset, and SOM's plethora of platypian paradice.
>
Bo's comments:
> Doug, Hugo and Squad!
> I fully understand Doug's need to 'avenge' Pirsig (P himself is
> also harsh at times towards SOM), but Phädrus of LILA is not so
> zealous. Somewhere he says something to the effect that it is not
> the intention of the MOQ to trash all of subject/object
> metaphysics, but how can SOM avoid being trashed if it
> competes with the Quality of being reality?
>
Bo,
I am not so much avenging Pirsig as I am trying to show that SOMites did
the same thing to Pirsig by erasing his mind with electro-shock as the
(SOMitic) Church did to Galileo and others when their intellectual
Static Patterns of Value evolved and began to gain power.
I agree with you that Pirsig tells us that we cannot throw SOM away. It
is an imperative part of our legacy Static Quality. But it is not
adequate for the new thinking we need for progress in Millennium III.
So MoQ, or a new philosophy like MoQ, must subsume SOM.
Doug Renselle.
> "By being subsumed/demoted within MOQ and still usable within it.."
> says Doug. Good, but this can only happen if it becomes an
> integrated quality part, and as there are only four value dimensions
> and their internal moral codes, where is it to be found? I will
> hasten to say that I know Pirsig's own
> "Inorganic+Organic=Objective/Social+Intellectual=Subjective" (SODV
> paper), still I take the liberty to - again - launch the
> "SOM-as-Intellect-of-MOQ" (SAIOM) idea again.
>
Bo,
As an "...integrated quality part,..." SOM may be found as unified
Static Patterns of Value in what MoQ calls Static Quality all of which
is in/commingles/interpenetrates Dynamic Quality.
In legacy SOM, we of TLS know, Aristotelian
substance/body/matter/property (the objective) reigns over the
insubstantial/mind/immaterial/value (the subjective). We hear the
SOMites preach, "Be objective. Your subjectivity is of low utility."
We also know in MoQ that what SOM calls the subjective is the most
valuable. MoQ takes S-O from SOM, unifies it as four levels of SPoVs,
inverts the hierarchy from SOM's O over S to MoQ's S over O.
(That is what the animation of the SOM to MoQ transformation shows.
That is also the technical flaw in the animation: in the final SOQ
symbol, the S should be above the O.)
Pirsig turned O-over-S into S-over-O and converted the higher
value/evolved Ss and the lower value/evolved Os into one class of SPoVs.
Bo, does this answer your question, "...where can it be found?"
To me, this is the sheer beauty of MoQ. A SOM approach would be to
divide and conquer. MoQ approach is to subsume and extend. Potent!
Doug Renselle.
> My line of thought is as follows:
> 1) In ZMM Pirsig claims that the original proto-MOQ (that which
> survived as "Eastern Tradition") was replaced by the growing
> impartiality and abstraction power of the old Greeks, and became the
> Subject/Object division of Western tradition.
> 2) In LILA the very same event is formulated as the Social level (of
> MOQ) being superimposed by the Intellectual level.
> 3) Put together these two "equations" have the
> SOM-as-Intellect-of-MOQ (SAIOM) result.
>
Bo,
But the substance-focused SOM (note: only a few of the SOM
ISMs/ontologies are substance-focused), as Pirsig told us, wants to be
'value free.' Thus we must relegate that aspect of SOM to the bottom
two SPoV layers, mustn't we? In that sense SOM (the substance-focused
versions) cannot be 'SOM-as-Intellect-of-MOQ.'
Do you agree?
Doug Renselle.
> Earlier on I have stressed that the Intellectual Level
> of MOQ must not be seen as "ability to think" or
> "awareness of objective reality", but
> perhaps can one relax a little bit here. About the first I am still
> adamant, but can it be that Intellect of MOQ IS awareness; not of
> objective reality free from social restraints, but of the value of
> objectivity ---- and subjectivity. Awareness of the quality of a
> self different from other (society).
>
Bo,
Both Quantum Science and my interpretation of MoQ clearly show that
'awareness' grows in complexity and intensity as the lower level SPoVs
evolve into the higher layers.
(E.g., photons, electrons, atoms, etc. are 'aware' when we observe them
and change from their wave to their particle complement. Note: most
'real' physicists would laugh at and ridicule this statement.)
To me, that means awareness is not unique to the Intellectual level.
The intellectual level of MoQ is the most highly evolved 'awareness' of
Reality.
Using SOM jargon in an MoQ context: subjectivity is higher value and
more highly evolved than objectivity. But in comparison, SOM wants to
be, as Pirsig said, "...free of value or subjectivity." MoQ says that
all of Reality is dependent upon, emerges from, and consists of two
classes of Value: Static and Dynamic.
Doug Renselle.
> I agree with what Hugo said earlier in his "Rambling..." entry about
> SOM being a useful tool (and also with Platt in his comments of 7
> March about SOM's value). The SAIOM idea meets their demands fully;
> perhaps is the subject/object division the highest moral pattern
> of the MOQ , while also satisfying Doug's requirement: it is
> subservient to the overall DQ. I find that it ties the two together
> seamlessly.
>
Bo,
When I re-read those three requirements I wrote to you and Hugo, I
sensed the very constrained context I was in when I stated them. I need
to go back and state a larger context and then within that larger
context re-write those statements. Given what Hugo said though, the one
line I quoted, and its own context, I stand by those three statements.
And yes, we appear to agree that Pirsig did tie/invert/unify/subsume
S-over-O very neatly and seamlessly within the MoQ.
He continues to amaze and enlighten this MoQite.
Doug Renselle.
> If it is a fruitful quality idea I don't claim rights, it was back
> when we tried to define the top level that the notion took form, and
> - of course - it is Pirsig's work that makes it possible to find such
> new veins. Please, all of the Squad, put it under scrutiny and see if
> there are weaknesses. To me it is like painting for too long on a
> picture, I have lost my ability to look upon it freshly.
>
> Bo
>
Bo,
I think we all know that forest/trees/grass feeling.
Mtty,
Doug Renselle.
-- "Now, we daily see what science is doing for us. This could not be unless it taught us something about reality; the aim of science is not things themselves, as the dogmatists in their simplicity imagine, but the relations between things; outside those relations there is no reality knowable."By Henri Poincaré, in 'Science and Hypothesis,' p. xxiv, translated from French in 1905 by J. Larmor, published 1952 by Dover Publications.
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:55 CEST