Diana (and squad: ) You wrote: >If the intellectual level and the SOM emerged at the >same time, does that make them the same thing? No, not >good enough. The subject-object metaphysics may just >have been the first intellectual pattern. The >intellectual level may actually have been born first >and they just both came of age at the same time. The >intellectual level may have evolved in many cultures >and it just happens that in Greece it was associated >with the subject-object metaphysics. I define a Level as a Class of Patterns based on the same kind of Quality. I don't know if this is a good definition, but I think it works. I'm not sure that S/O split is only an intellectual pattern. It seems to me a way of thinking common to many metaphisics (not to all): if a metaphysics is an intellectual pattern, we can define S/O split as a property common to many I-Patterns, and we must write SOMs, not SOM. (Or, if you want, we can say that SOM is a I-pattern structured in many sub-patterns (metaphisics): this doesn't change the matter). If you go out of MOQ, maybe no one KNOWS S/O split: the most philosophers, politicians, scientists � (especially in western world) USE S/O split in their intellectual life. If you want to see S/O split you must stay outside of SOMs, and MOQ is a good point of view. However, I agree that S/O split itself is not a level. I think that SOMs, or, better, the metaphisics based on S/O split, are the main (and not the only) intellectual patterns in western world. Maybe I repeat myself, however I think that Aristotelian SOM has won the fight versus the other patterns, firstly in ancient greece, then in all western world, because it has been up to now more useful for technology and society. > Next is the problem that SOM is merely one >intellectual pattern and the MOQ is another >intellectual pattern. Bo thinks that the MOQ cannot >contain the intellectual level which contains the MOQ >which contains the intellectual level ... But, Bo, the >MOQ is just a metaphysics - a map of reality. If I >draw a map, say, of my desk and everything on it >including the map, then the map would include the map. >I don't see a problem with that. So, I find the >prosecution has presented inconclusive evidence. I agree. If the metaphisics based on S/O split are intellectual patterns, also MOQ is that: they have in common the same basic values. >I keep asking myself, what is the key to the >intellectual level? I see two aspects to it. The first >is the values of the intellectual level, namely >freedom, democracy, human rights. I would like to add also the searching for truth, the searching for good, and the searching for agreement. Freedom and human rights are necessary if you want to argue your ideas. That's why many I-Patterns are fighting for freedom: to have the chance to argue ideas and obtain agreement. Or, that's why sometime I-patterns and/or social patterns fight freedom: it's the fear to lose agreement. >The second is reason. [ �] If there are no camels in >Germany, are there camels in Berlin? Reason says no. >Why? Because Berlin is in Germany so a fact that >applies to Germany also applies to Berlin. Why? >Because you cannot have two truths about the same >thing. Why? Because there is only one truth. Is that >the essence of reason? There is only one truth. Is >that the fundamental principle on which reason is >based? If that's so then the truth/good split is the intellectual level. Halt! This is the Aristotelian way to Absolute. Note that your first word is "If". I ask you: are you sure that no camels are in Germany? You can answer: yes, because Germany is in Europe, and no camels are in Europe� and so on, until you will arrive to Absolute God. And however you can say that yesterday no camels were in Berlin, but now? And do we agree about what Germany is, or a Camel is? If you say that there is only one truth, I say that we can't know exactly where that truth is. Reality is not an Absolute Truth. Reality is relative. Reality is Quality. The truth/good split is a problem only if you believe in the One Truth: assuming that is impossible to reach the complete thruth, you can well accept good as your target. >I worry about causation a lot too. Why does there >always have to be a why? Causation assumes that things >happen linearly, one after the other. Even concepts >must come one after the other. Why? Because there is >only one way of things? That seems to come down to one >truth as well. This is a problem. Pirsig also, in Lila, starts describing his method of filing informations: he orders informations by answering to a fundamental question: what comes before? (or, what comes after?). I think he did not discovered the evolution of quality: on the contrary he assumed it as the starting point of his metaphisics. However it works and we are Sophists, so we can assume it as a good way to describe reality. My opinion is that evolution is not causation. Causation needs a Necessary Beginning, or a Necessary End (theleology). Evolution is a choice among many chances. The future is unwritten. The past is a sum of opinions. >Well, if the intellectual level is the One Truth and >the truth/good split is the flip side of the >subject/object split then that would mean the >intellectual level is the subject-object metaphysics >so the answer would be both of them. S/O split is not I-Level itself: my post is outside SOMs, but I think it works at I-Level: it's searching for good and truth and agreement; and it has been possible to write thanks to freedom of speech. I end by saying that in the Ancient Greece I-Level emerged for the very first time in western culture (I don't know if it was already present somewhere or in some past time); and that after a brief time, aristotelian metaphysics, based on S/O split, emerged and won as the most useful metaphysics in greek society. > Never trust a spiritual master who can't dance - Mr >Miyagi Indeed, Phoedrus danced very well with Lila. But, did you ever see me dancing?? Marco. MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
