Cool Bo, I am relieved that you agree that quality cannot manifest without the inorganic and you go on to say further that "Quality's first manifestation was/is the inorganic level"; you add weight to the Krimel's assertions about a 'Top Down Fallacy'. Straying for a moment from your SOLAQI notion though, there is another conundrum here in that as quality gets, for want of a better word, digested by the upper levels it results in increasingly intentional action that creates new value ultimately reshaping the inorganic, alluded to by Gav's bi-directional vision in that thread.
I guessed that English wasn't your first language. Strictly speaking I'm a European too but not from the mainland. I'm glad you didn't take offence and can now say I think I'm improving at translating what you mean when you discuss these convoluted ideas. You said that "Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter where the 'self-awareness' term - not belong - but was CREATED". I surmise that you mean no! And further your statement suggests to me you think both the social and intellectual levels of the MoQ relate only to humans. Also it seems to me from your statement that you think the term 'self-awareness' is linked to the use of language; if the cat could refer to itself as 'me' you would then say it is self-aware. Cats are not the most sociable animals but all animals are to some extent social. The cats behaviour suggests to me that it is self-aware; for example my sleeping cat reacts almost instantly to me touching a single one of his hairs. The names for the MoQ levels must relate to their everyday meaning otherwise we'll all be chasing each other's tails in these emails forever. The way I see it all life is to some degree able to differentiate itself from it's environment. You confirm my interpretation of your point of view with 'At the bio.(cat) level this does not include a self or language, particularly not the internal kind we call "thinking"'. You reinforce this later: 'with language came the silent form called "thinking"'. Agreed that real language is unique to humans but language is only a means of communication between humans and thought must take place before being expressed in language otherwise I wouldn't be able to translate your occasionally quirky use of English. To me the SA's cougar that hesitates before leaping the ravine clearly indicates it has a conception of itself and it's future. This is the main reason I have such difficulty in equating SOM with the intellectual level. Getting back to Pirsig, his secondary division was of the static quality into mind and matter; mind and matter being your archetypal subject and object. The cat has a mind and memory, devoid of language yet nevertheless able to distinguish itself from it's environment; it must use a rudimentary symbolisation to be able to exercise it's intentions; it can think ahead to a certain extent. I haven't finished your SOLAQI yet but I think that there is a crucial assumption of understand that you have presumed of the reader that you must explain if your hypothesis is to be accepted. Kind regards -Peter On 24/11/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Peter > > On 23 Nov. you wrote: > > > on one hand your apparent unwavering confidence in your understanding > > of the MoQ is persuasive and makes me think I need to understand your > > point of view more; on the other hand in your posts your use of common > > words with your own specialised meaning, your poor phraseology, your > > sometimes patronising responses and that you frequently miss out > > conjunctions in your explanations and use unusual punctuation all do > > not help your cause. > > But English is not my first language. In the old days when there > were other Europeans around this site I used to find them easier > to understand than the "natives". But no sore feelings, I > appreciate your honesty. > > > It could be my weak brain that's the snag and if I were more familiar > > with ZAMM and LILA I would be able to decipher better what you mean; > > so I hope you don't take those comments too negatively, I say them in > > the hope that they can some how lead me to be able to understand you > > better. > > > I'm in the process of reading your SOLAQI update but in the meantime > > I'd like to ask you a couple of, for me, important questions: > > GOOD! > > > Do you think that a cat can think? > > "To think" carries tons of SOM. What you ask is really "are cats > self-aware"? Cats are certainly INTELLIGENT but is neither part > of the social nor of the intellectual levels, particularly the latter > where the "self-awareness" term - not belong - but was > CREATED. > > If you can stand some more on "intelligence"? It is a biological > pattern by way of the neural complexity called brain that makes > higher organisms able to store former experience (Read and > Write memory) and retrieve it - play around with it in imaginary > scenarios - what makes them able to learn from experience > included seeing other perform an act. At the bio.(cat) level this > does not include a self or language, particularly not the internal > kind we call "thinking". As the social level rose on top of biology it > adopted this pattern and because the biological pattern which > spawned "society" were Homo Sapiens, brain and intelligence > were enormous. If language was part of the social level from the > start or developed is a big question, the Neanderthals certainly > lived in family and tribal groups, but did not have language. > Anyway, with language came the silent form called "thinking", so > did names and a group identity that transcended the animal > range. Kingdoms and other "doms" arose. (this is a leap of tens > of thousands of years course) I find this passage from ZAMM > catching this reality so well. > > One must first get over the idea that the time span > between the last caveman and the first Greek > philosophers was short. The absence of any history for > this period sometimes gives this illusion. But before the > Greek philosophers arrived on the scene, for a period of > at least five times all our recorded history since the Greek > philosophers, there existed civilizations in an advanced > state of development. They had villages and cities, > vehicles, houses, marketplaces, bounded fields, > agricultural implements and domestic 381 animals, and > led a life quite as rich and varied as that in most rural > areas of the world today. And like people in those areas > today they saw no reason to write it all down, or if they > did, they wrote it on materials that have never been > found. Thus we know nothing about them. The ``Dark > Ages'' were merely the resumption of a natural way of life > that had been momentarily interrupted by the Greeks. > > This also shows that - to Phaedrus - "The Greeks" are the pivot > point that changed everything , in ZAMM they meant the coming > of SOM, in LILA it ought to have been the emergence of 4th. > level. But more on INTELLECT in another post. > > > Do you think quality can manifest itself in any way without the > > inorganic? > > The quick answer is "no", but it requires some explanation. At > first Pirsig put great emphasize on a QUALITY outside the MOQ > (that creates an infinite regress) He later "recanted" and said that > the Quality he speaks about in ZAMM is the DQ of the MOQ. In > that case the basic postulate is Reality=DQ/SQ (which isn't > different from the Reality=Quality in any other respect than > removing the Quality outside/ahead of the MOQ) thus Quality's > first manifestation was/is the inorganic level. > > Everything in my opinion of course, but I can't add this at the end > of each sentence. > > 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/
