Hi Spirit (and all mortals)
16 Dec. you cited Marsha's:
> > That's the way I see it too. Maybe if Bo's problem
> > can be better
> > understood, a better way to address it will surface.
And went on:
> I've brought up before to Bo his insistance of what seems to be an
> established evolutionary order that he wants to solidify, which would
> put him in the same category as Auguste Comte. Comte came up with an
> evolutionary social order as follows: primitive, agricultural,
> industrial. Comte said society evolves in this order. Thus, if a
> society is primitive then it is less evolved than an industrial
> society. What was difficult, amongst other things, for Comte's social
> evolutionary order was how certain societies could evolve along his
> idea of social evolution, but how other societies around the world
> (most of them), didn't evolve according to his idea. Also, I'm not sure
> who came up with this, but another age system is the stone age, copper
> age, and iron age. Bo seems to be wanting to establish ages to
> intellect.
Hmm, now it's Comte after being Plato and Hitler. Anyway, that
the MOQ is an evolutionary metaphysics is no news, are there
any world view that don't involves one kind of evolution or other?
> Bo seems to want an established evolutionary order timeline. Thus,
> once intellect was established in ancient Greece with the development
> of S/O,
In the Paul Turner letter Pirsig said
And since everything is thus social, why even have the
word? I think the same happens to the term, "intellectual,"
when one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.*
"The same" is the absurdity that occurs if the Q-social term is
applied to cell colonies, anthills and wolf-packs ...etc. Thus we
see that the Ancient Greeks is where Pirsig sees the intellectual
level - OK, he hedges his words as usual, but with a little nudge.
And "the Greeks" in a MOQ context is SOM, so I'm no heretic,
but spot on
> then Bo finds the need to establish another order/level due to the
> emergence of the moq. This is why Bo refers to all other non-greek S/O
> orders/levels as the social age, and before the social age, human
> beings were in the biological age.
First about the non-Greek S/O. The (*) in the Pirsig quote refers
to his footnote.
* The argument that Oriental cultures would not be
classified as intellectual is avoided by pointing out that
the Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level
independently of the Greeks during the Upanishadic
period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C. (These dates
may be off.)
He is a master of ambiguity. "An intellectual level" is a most
peculiar formulating. Life is THE biological level and if life is
found on Mars its not a Martian biological level, but the biological
level on Mars ... regardless how strange. This goes for social
value and must also pertain to intellect. If Intellect was S/O with
the Greeks it has to be S/O all over the Universe.
Regarding the MOQ as "another level" that seems to be the main
grievance. Pirsig envisioned something beyond intellect, no
static level but the aesthetics of creating the MOQ. I'm grateful to
Platt for pointing this out.
> Bo seems to be trying to convey a message of ages according to
> humankinds intellect. Thus, were you, Dan, Steve, and others see the
> moq as an intellectual pattern of value where intellects patterns may
> change as I'm sure Krimel might sympathize as neuro-networks in the
> brain as changing, Bo wants to keep the intellect as an age and an
> established Plato eternal form that can't change, so, the moq, in Bo's
> view must be on another level higher than the greeks intellect. Bo
> seems to want to follow a historical timeline. But... all of what I'm
> saying above doesn't mean a thing if Bo doesn't see it this way, and if
> Bo disagrees with the above how could I argue with him for I would hope
> Bo would be introspective enough to know where he is coming from better
> than I do. Maybe Bo is trying to hold onto his SOL interpretation like
> Ham holds onto his essence thesis.
For a while I thought this was argumentation, but it's the usual
"throwing up of hands" over my stubborness. Ham Priday has
never shown any interest in the MOQ while I have done noting
BUT fight for the original Phaedrus MOQ against a newageism
that constantly tries to invade it. Yes, intellect was/is an age, in
the same sense that there was an age when the biological level
reigned and one when social value was "leading edge". But all
levels evolved ... to a point that made one of its patterns dynamic
enough to escape and create a new level. Intellect too (to create
the MOQ .. no static level though!).
> It's his, he professed it for a long time, put a lot of time into it,
> and can't give up on it yet, and somehow it must fit due to so much
> energy of his was spent on it. I have no problem with this, and I
> don't see how anybody could. This flurry of posts by me only began
> when Bo tried to say he knew the moq better than anybody else,
> including Pirsig, and then went as far as to say that I have no clue
> what the moq is.
Pirsig ended the said letter by declaring that his opinion is no
Papal Bull ... perhaps just bull he added. The MOQ seems to be
the first Internet created metaphysics and is still under
construction. He also said (to me in a letter) that if the SOL had
value it would percolate to the top (a Solomonic verdict) And IMO
the SOL is the only interpretation that gives the MOQ an
explanatory power. I don't know what "your" intellect is, but if it is
the "symbol manipulation" one, how can social value see this as
a threat, and intellect in return look upon social value as evil, and
- moreover - spawn the intellectual patterns that Pirsig refers to
(below) all of which are based on the "objective over subjective"
template.
Third, there were moral codes that established the
supremacy of the intellectual order over the social order -
democracy, trial by jury, freedom of speech, freedom of
the press.
> When I pointed out that nobody agrees with his SOL,
> he said that Peter agrees with his SOL, thus, the only gate into moq
> reality is through Bo's SOL and I find that troublesome. So, yes, Bo's
> problem might be better understood, and a better way to address his
> problem might come about, but it would seem laterally drifting is
> amidst Bo's SOL - an act of waiting for something better, which as you,
> Steve, and Dan G. have pointed out something better has occurred, it is
> intellect understood as a static pattern of value, but Bo would have to
> take this next step and realize value and morals are intellectual,
> social, etc..
Do you see me as denying that (in you peculiar words) "value and
morals are intellectual and social"? I.e: that the 3rd and 4th.
levels aren't static value levels? If so you certainly show a spirit
of misunderstanding.
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/
