Hugo Fjelsted Alroe (alroe@vip.cybercity.dk)
Mon, 16 Mar 1998 17:33:31 +0100
Bo, Squad,
Thanks for your detailed reply, Bo! >> is Hugo, > is Bo
>> So, in my view MoQ is a step further, beyond SOM, on a path towards
>> greater awareness; greater intellectual awarenes, - because it is
>> only on the intellectual level that we can be aware of our selves,
>> this is indeed what makes the intellectual level distinct.
>
>Great. Up to - and including - this paragraph, we have been in total
>agreement, but then you continue:
I am very glad that we can agree this far, this means that whatever
difference left, may not be as fundamental as I thought.
>> What does this mean for the relationship between MoQ and SOM?. SOM
>> is not the intellectual level of MoQ, they are both intellectual
>> phenomenons, both specific ways of looking upon our selves and our
>> world. And SOM is not simply subsumed as a part of MoQ, because SOM
>> arose from neglect of the presumed subject-object split, diverging
>> because of this, and there is no ground for this diversion in MoQ or
>> some similar metaphysics.
>
>It was at the...." they are both intellectual phenomenons, both
>specific ways of looking upon our selves and our world"....point that
>I thought that you had me cornered, but then the obvious struck me.
>Does Hugo mean intellect (mind) of SOM or the Intellectual level of
>MOQ? It makes a world of difference. In the former MOQ is merely
>another subjective theory about objective reality. If it is the
>latter- yes, yes! MOQ is Intellectual Patterns of Value, and so is
>SOM and SAIOM. Everything is InPoV at that level, but Dynamic
>Quality is outside the static patterns and is now searching for
>ways to circumvent even Intellect's constraints. And if SOM is seen
>as Intellect ...Ipso facto! That's why the MOQ is born: to
>go beyond the Intellect/SOM. To call it a new static value level is
>way too soon, but it is a meandering "sprout" searching for
>foothold.
Yes, I did mean the intellectual level of MoQ. You seem to draw something
like the following conclusion from this: Since SOM is at the intellectual
level of MoQ, MoQ must be beyond that, sprouting into some new level.
And I, so far, disagree with this conclusion. This has to do with my
considering all metaphysics self-reflective, metaphysics is the
intellectual (still speaking from some MoQ-like stance) endeavour towards
understanding our selves and our world. And any such endeavour is
necessarily self-reflective. Self-reflectiveness is dizzying and avoided by
most rationally inclined people, - but there is no path toward greater
awareness if we try to avoid this self-reflective nature of intellectual
understanding.
As I have said before, I believe the proper definition or characterization
of the intellectual level is by its self-reflective nature, and I have
shown how all the four levels can be seen as levels of representation or
reflection. The inorganic is the pre-representational level, in Peircean
terms sporting only monadic (quality) and dyadic relations, but not the
triadic relations of representation. The biological level (which is not
necessarily *bio*logical) is characterized by the autonomity of entities
representing their world, and the social level is characterized by the
mutuality of autonomous entities representing each other. The intellectual
level is characterized by autonomous entities representing them selves.
Niels Bohr liked to give the example (from a Danish philosopher called Poul
Moeller) of a student sitting at the table, thinking of himself sitting at
the table, thinking of himself sitting at the table, and so on ad infinitum.
Anyway, acknowledging the intellectual level as necessarily
self-reflective, and seeing that this self-reflection is not an all or
nothing, but an awareness which can be furthered, there is no need for a
MoQ moving towards some new level. There is only the growing awareness of
the intellectual level, moving from vague suspicions to mythology and
metaphysics; and Metaphysics of Quality is (I believe) a step towards
greater awareness, but not a step towards another level.
>Again: I believe that the SAIOM idea is the only way to meet your
>requirements for recognition of the merits of the subject/object
>division. Earlier I have attacked awareness (and still do if it
>implies the 'view from nowhere') as foreign to the MOQ, but perhaps
>SOM is *awareness* of subjective self as different from non-self
>(objects)? Such a view merge ZMM's "SOM-replacing-ancient-Quality"
>with LILA's "Intellect-out-of- Society". It rounds everything off in a
>closed circle fashion. Aesthetically as Platt would have put it.
>
>>From my p.o.v. I am not swayed, but then you will probably say the
>same. Only the master himself can settle this, but it's wrong for me
>to write to ask - as if a favour - so if anyone more "neutral" has a
>letter to Pirsig in progress. Please!
No need to call in the cavalry yet, Bo, we are still talking, aren't we?
Thanks for your detailed response, Bo, and let me know if I have missed
something you consider important.
Regards
Hugo
-- 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 - 16:42:56 CEST