Magnus Berg (MagnusB@DataVis.se)
Wed, 8 Jul 1998 19:30:45 +0100
Hi Jonathan and Squad
You wrote:
> Let me first clarify what I mean by "intellectualise". I mean matching
> experience to a pattern. Without this, the experience makes no sense
> and
> isn't even assimilated - as if it didn't happen. This pattern then
> continues to be evaluated as it is put into some hierarchy. Quality,
> moral and value are all part of this evaluation as we look for the
> BEST
> way to understand the experience
>
And I think what you're describing is only intellectual patterns
and shadows of other levels. I see too much of Descartes
"I think, therefore I am" in it. He tried to prove existence with,
what he thought was, a non-ad-hoc statement. The MoQ says that
the following statements are just as valid.
I weigh, therefore I am.
I sense, therefore I am.
I interact with others, therefore I am.
The difference is that the MoQ acknowledges that these statements
are true because of the underlying metaphysics, they're relative.
Descartes thought that his statement was absolute.
So, why is this important? Because it makes us aware of exactly
*how* intellectual patterns are relative, *what* they are
dependent on. I think that your version of the MoQ sounds more
like some kind of moral framework inside idealism.
> It was Isaac Newton who said that bodies continue moving in a straight
> line with constant velocity until acted on by an extraneous force (or
> words to that effect). Here we have the paradox of static
> vs.dynamic.Is
> "constant velocity" a static or dynamic pattern? I think that this is
> mostly what bothered me with Bo's Change vs. Permanence, but
> obviously
> I failed to make the point previously.
>
There is no paradox, patterns are static. DQ is non-patterns, change of
patterns.
> I think that the real problem is that the whole MoQ is an intellectual
> pattern (including all its levels).
> It claims to encapsulate everything, including itself. I recall a poem
> about Horace, who one day sat down and ate himself ... until all that
> was
> left was a stomach sitting on the floor. Such is the problem, and I
> haven't the faintest idea how to solve it.
>
We, or more precisely Doug, wrote a letter to Pirsig asking,
"Does the MoQ value its own extension?".
The answer is on the web page somewhere I believe and goes
something like.
"Yes, but perhaps not right now."
He meant that the MoQ is of course not absolutely static and
fully developed, but it could be harmful to expose too many
versions of it this early in its history. That's partly why
we're trying to pin down the basics with these program threads.
I really can't see your problem above. The difference, and
there is a big difference, between the grotesque Horace example
and the MoQ intellectual pattern, is that inorganic patterns,
what Horace is made of, are unique. There are no two particles
in the universe that are identical. Intellectual patterns, on
the other hand, have this luxury. It is part of its freedom and
power. Recursion, the big paradox, is also possible. So, a MoQ
inside a MoQ is no big deal. A Horace inside a Horace is.
> This binary logic is immensely powerful and scaleable, as has been
> shown
> in the digital computer. The same "binary logic" pervades our common
> language. I suggest that this binary nature is inherent to language,
> and
> this is a reason for the victory of the dialectic, not a consequence
> of
> it.
>
Makes sense, the goal of language is to enable communication between
biological patterns within a society. So it's natural that the
language separates "I" (this biological pattern) and "not I" (other
biological patterns).
> Now I want to come back to Pirsig's initial attempt (in ZAMM) at
> dividing Quality into Classical Quality (binary logic) and Romantic
> Quality (non-binary). In Lila, Pirsig goes almost exclusively with CQ
> language, because RQ language was too weak to further his cause.
> Similarly, the Lila Squad discussion is almost entirely CQ, except
> when
> someone throws up a colourful metaphor. As I see it, I am one of the
> most CQ (uncool) people in the Squad. All this "Intellectual"
> patterns,
> algorithms, molecular description etc. is all CQ stuff. Yet I can't
> deny
> that RQ is a whole other pattern recognition system. I don't have to
> be
> able to (verbally) describe a tasty dish to know that I recognise it
> and
> like it.
>
That's because biological value is just as real as intellectual.
You seem to derive your SQ/DQ split from the CQ/RQ division. (I don't
think Pirsig denoted them Quality though. He talked about classical
and romantic understandings, not Quality.) They have nothing to do
with eachother. They are completely different.
The taste you're experiencing becomes SQ at the moment of the
experience, the Quality Event. If you want to verbally describe it
however, you have to convert the biological patterns to intellectual
patterns and use language to communicate it to others. Both are SQ!
Both are real!
Magnus
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:27 CEST