On Wednesday 24 October 2007 2:01:09 AM Bo writes to Joe
Hi Bo and all,
I feel at a loss to respond to each of your points! Pre-socratic thinkers
certainly had a sense of he way up is the way down. The harmony of the spheres
followed from an interpretation of music. Aristotle did no one any favors in
his explanation of knowledge as having an intentional existence of essence from
an image in real existence the body/soul split. Aquinas at the end of his life
declared "What I have written is as straw!"
When I was learning about Aquinas I felt he was just being modest by that
statement. After studying esotericism as proposed by Gurdjieff, Ouspensky,
Rodney Colin, Bennet and others I concluded that Aquinas was sincere. After
reading Pirsig I feel a theory for knowledge has to go back to the drawing
board. Maybe I am just a weather vane pointing in all kinds of wind directions.
IMO That many thinkers have come and gone from the early Greeks in Western
culture proposing an octave of order like Pythagoras, is in the historical
record.
[Bo]
It always takes some time to tune in on your very special
frequency and this evolution of yours - and its laws - that you
constantly refer to, is it some universal thing. I'm unsure because
I've never heard about an General Evolution (in the same sense
as General Relativity) only biological evolution.
[Joe answers]
IMO It is in the record.
[Bo]
You seemingly only name two levels: The INDIVIDUAL and NOT
INDIVIDUAL. Is KNOWLEDGE the third one? All right I ask
because this looks like Peirce's Sign Metaphysics' which in turn
resembles the first trinity version of the MOQ
Pirsig:
QUALITY
|Subject Object
(mind) (matter)
Peirce:
PRIMARY SIGN
|Interpreter Object
(subject/mind)
Maurer:
KNOWLEDGE
Individual Not individual
(subject/mind) (Object/matter)
Is this something you may acknowledge? (if my diagrams
survive?)
[Joe answers]
IMO (subject/mind) (object/matter) is based on Aristotle’s division of
existence into intentional and real existence. I reject that division. Mind is
a misnomer of subjective experience. The crux of this question is: The
mind/matter difference is a division of existence? Or a movement from an
organic to a social level, from instinct to proprietary awareness in evolution?
[Bo]
"The order of evolution"? Is that identical to the static evolution in
moqspeak? If so why not use the phraseology of the MOQ?
Regarding "the presence of an individual". The first trinity MOQ
had the Individual (subject or mind) as one of (the two) Quality
creations. Later this trinity was replaced by the dualist Romantic
/Classic metaphysics AND FROM NOW THE SUBJECT (MIND
OR INDIVIDUAL) IS GONE FROM THE QUALITY UNIVERSE
...... along with the object (matter). The two have become a
subset of Classic Quality which was subtitled "Intellectual". In
other words Intellect=S/O.
[Joe answers]
IMO the order of evolution in moqspeak does not distinguish a cosmic evolution
and a conscious evolution. Trying to explain evolution I see a necessity for
seven levels.
[Bo]
I may be totally out of tune with your question but let me drone on
The Romantic/Classic dualism was replaced by Dynamic/Static
and Pirsig makes it sound as if this is totally different, but I see a
close relationship. Anyway, had the static intellectual level
retained the S/O content all would have been fine.
[Joe answers]
IMO Without distinguishing a conscious/cosmic evolution, S/O becomes a dogma
which can destroy the intellectual level by turning it into mind.
Consciousness (proprietary awareness) is not seen as the explanation of
evolution to the social level, and the dual nature of a law of evolution,
cosmic/conscious is not seen as the explanation of evolution to the
intellectual level. I believe this was Pirsig’s intent in the logic/mystic
explanation, but he was not specific.
With this caveat I can accept the SOL characterization of the intellectual
level.
[Bo]
Do you see me singling out the intellectual level? If I harp on the SOL
(intellect=S/O) it's because it is the original idea that Pirsig of LILA
dropped. This latter interpretation of intellect (that no-one
really know what is) have repercussions for the rest of the levels
because (this mysterious 4th. level) makes most people retain
the mind-interpretation and consequently everything becomes
intellectual patterns.
If the S/O interpretation of intellect were establishes we would be
able to delve on the other levels much like we did in the early
days of the Lila Squad.
[Joe answers]
IMO A meta-level DQ/SQ spawning a static intellectual level is cumbersome. I
would prefer the LOGICAL/MYSTICAL explanation for knowledge based on a
cosmic/conscious division of evolution as an explanation for my experience. Sex
is unique! Two levels are highlighted, conscious experience, as well as
mechanical reproduction.
Joe
Hi Joe
On 23 Oct. you commented my words to David M:
> > Forgive me but it all hinges on understanding the MOQ (the
> > SOLinterpretation) None of these persons knew any levels, their
> > ideas were confined to SOM (without knowing any SOM) Some
> > saw faults with it, but this lead nowhere except to "all is mind" or
> > "all is matter". OK, I know you will protest, that some saw deeper
> > realities beyond/below the S/O, but without the Dynamic/Static split of
> > these deeper realitiesl it was still-born.
> > As said, it's a tendency to see all thinking and/or ideas as
> > "intellectual patterns", for instance that the Babylonians plans for
> > building their Hanging Gardens were the workings of intellect, but
> > because this era was before the intellectual level it's clearly wrong.
> > Pirsig finally saw this fallacy (the Paul Turner letter) but his
> > "revision" was so vague and half-hearted that it hardly made it any
> > better. He was a hair's breadth from affirming the SOL, but then backed
> > away with the "Oriental intellect".
> [Joe]
> As I read through your conclusion I require a further clarification
> for myself of the Dynamic/Static split. For evolution a law of three
> is required for a knowledge of the manifestation, namely, the level,
> what the individual is, what the individual is not.
It always takes some time to tune in on your very special
frequency and this evolution of yours - and its laws - that you
constantly refer to, is it some universal thing. I'm unsure because
I've never heard about an General Evolution (in the same sense
as General Relativity) only biological evolution.
You seemingly only name two levels: The INDIVIDUAL and NOT
INDIVIDUAL. Is KNOWLEDGE the third one? All right I ask
because this looks like Peirce's Sign Metaphysics' which in turn
resembles the first trinity version of the MOQ
Pirsig:
QUALITY
|
Subject Object
(mind) (matter)
Peirce:
PRIMARY SIGN
|
Interpreter Object
(subject/mind)
Maurer:
KNOWLEDGE
|
Individual Not individual
(subject/mind) (Object/matter)
Is this something you may acknowledge? (if my diagrams
survive?)
> Since there is no known level of the Dynamic, it is unmanifest. In one
> way then in terms of knowledge the Dynamic/Static split can be
> configured as an Unmanifest/Manifest split.
Yes!
> In this case the order of evolution is unmanifest while the presence of
> an individual within the order is manifest.
"The order of evolution"? Is that identical to the static evolution in
moqspeak? If so why not use the phraseology of the MOQ?
Regarding "the presence of an individual". The first trinity MOQ
had the Individual (subject or mind) as one of (the two) Quality
creations. Later this trinity was replaced by the dualist Romantic
/Classic metaphysics AND FROM NOW THE SUBJECT (MIND
OR INDIVIDUAL) IS GONE FROM THE QUALITY UNIVERSE
...... along with the object (matter). The two have become a
subset of Classic Quality which was subtitled "Intellectual". In
other words Intellect=S/O.
> How does this explanation specifically describe the Intellectual level
> since it also applies to the other levels of evolution?
I may be totally out of tune with your question but let me drone on
The Romantic/Classic dualism was replaced by Dynamic/Static
and Pirsig makes it sound as if this is totally different, but I see a
close relationship. Anyway, had the static intellectual level
retained the S/O content all would have been fine.
> Why single out the intellectual level?
Do you see me singling out the intellectual level? If I harp on the
SOL (intellect=S/O) it's because it is the original idea that Pirsig
of LILA dropped. This latter interpretation of intellect (that no-one
really know what is) have repercussions for the rest of the levels
because (this mysterious 4th. level) makes most people retain
the mind-interpretation and consequently everything becomes
intellectual patterns.
If the S/O interpretation of intellect were establishes we would be
able to delve on the other levels much like we did in the early
days of the Lila Squad.
Bo
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
