[Marsha]
> > > 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.
[SA previously]
> > I've brought up before to Bo his insistence 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.
[Bo]
> Hmm, now it's Comte after being Plato and Hitler.
[SA currently]
1 - Comte, in the sense that you seem to be
trying to establish an identity, a definition for each
level in terms of age. As if we could look at what
you might say a society is in the social age and point
out soon they will be in the intellectual age. You
seem to think the levels are 'ages'. You've mentioned
the levels as ages before.
2 - Plato, due to you think that each level
establishes itself with a certain identity that cannot
change. For instance, your insistence that the
intellectual level is S/O, only because S/O is pointed
out by Pirsig as the beginnings of the intellectual
level. No doubt, as I repeated many times here, that
S/O is an intellectual pattern, but once the intellect
is identified as involving an S/O intellectual pattern
that does not mean the intellectual level can evolve
into other patterns. You think each level is
eternally a certain pattern. Since each level is an
eternal form for you, such as intellectual has to be
S/O and can't be anything else - ever, then you had to
think up where does this moq that Pirsig came up with
go. So, with your line of thinking you decided to
make up a new meta-level called the moq. If
subject-object science paralyzes society, such as the
quote from Lila, and subject-object science doesn't
have a place for values and morals, then how does your
interpretation of the intellectual level of S/O all of
a sudden have value and morals when you insist that
the moq is on some 5th meta-level? I've asked you
this many times, but you keep skipping this question.
3- Hitler, due to your comment that YOU only know
the moq and nobody else has a clue, not even Pirsig.
The last time I checked that's being a dictator and
making everybody come to you, even Pirsig, to find out
the true way to live. If they disagree with you, then
you just say 'they don't have a clue about the moq'.
[Bo]
> 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?
[SA currently]
Hey, I have no quarrel with this. I'm trying to
point out your Comte-Plato perspective. This is not
slander. This is what it seems like your trying to
argue for. I'm trying to condense meanings you try to
get across into simpler, shorter comments. With Comte
comes a lot of information and all's I'm doing is
pointing out that your trying to project the moq as
Comte would. Do you disagree with your view trying to
establish each level as an age in natural and
intellectual history with an eternal label for each
age?
[SA previously]
> > Bo seems to want an established evolutionary order
> timeline. Thus,
> > once intellect was established in ancient Greece
> with the development of S/O,
[Bo]
> 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.*
[Bo continues]
> "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
[SA quotes Lila ch. 8]
"Or, using another analogy, saying that a
Metaphysics of Quality is false and a subject-object
metaphysics is true is like saying that rectangular
coordinates are true and polar coordinates are false.
A map with the North Pole at the center is confusing
at first, but it's every bit as correct as a Mercator
map. In the Arctic it's the only map to have. Both are
simply intellectual patterns for interpreting reality
and one can only say that in some circumstances
rectangular coordinates provide a better, simpler
interpretation.
The Metaphysics of Quality provides a better set of
coordinates with which to interpret the world than
does subject-object metaphysics because it is more
inclusive. It explains more of the world and it
explains it better. The Metaphysics of Quality can
explain subject-object relationships beautifully but,
as Phaedrus had seen in anthropology, a subject-object
metaphysics can't explain values worth a damn. It has
always been a mess of unconvincing psychological
gibberish when it tries to explain values."
[SA currently continues]
S/O and Quality are both intellectual patterns
with quality being the better of the two. That's what
this quote says. Other's have pointed out how this
S/O intellect of yours misconstrues what is meant and
only complicates the moq. Notice again, this quote
brings back how S/O can't explain values "worth a
damn". If quality is value, then your intellectual
level interpretation can't explain quality "worth a
damn" according to this quote above.
[SA previously]
> > 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.
[Bo]
> 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.)
[Bo continues]
> 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.
[SA currently]
I don't know what your trying to say here.
[Bo]
> 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.
[SA currently]
What Pirsig not only envisioned but said is the
primary reality, this "beyond" you seem to be
referring to, is called dynamic quality, not simply
called as you keep putting it as the "MOQ". The moq
is not just this "beyond" (in which you call it), but
the moq is all of the static levels. These static
levels are called static quality (it's all in Lila).
Then Pirsig points out another aspect of Quality which
is called dynamic quality. Dynamic quality is not
defined. Quality is thus split into dynamic and
static aspects and they are called dynamic quality and
static quality. Static quality is further delineated
into four levels, etc, etc... You keep wanting the
moq outside of the levels. The moq is the levels and
dynamic quality.
[SA previously]
> > 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.
[Bo]
> For a while I thought this was argumentation, but
> it's the usual
> "throwing up of hands" over my stubborness.
[SA currently]
Nop, these are real assertions that I've put
forth, but you don't know how to answer them. Do I
recognize a blind spot of your's Bo, that dampens your
will to understand?
[Bo]
> 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 ...
[SA currently]
Instead of saying all of this above, I've
shortened it to one word - Comte, to make it simpler.
[Bo]
> 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!).
[SA currently]
The MOQ is the static quality levels and dynamic
quality. The "M" is mystical and intellectual. The
"of" is a nice preposition between the "M" and "Q".
Quality has a first split into static and dynamic.
Quality is even more distinct as levels. Quality is
intellectual, social, biological, and inorganic.
Quality is also this dynamic undefined. This is the
mystical and positivist aspects of old working
together in unison, etc, etc...
[SA previously]
> > 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.
[Bo]
> 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)
[SA currently]
"if"
[Bo]
> And IMO the SOL is the only interpretation that
gives the
> MOQ an explanatory power.
[SA currently]
I think it complicates and rejects what is
already simple, wise, and compassionate. Your
interpretation is not necessary and doesn't help in
explanation, as you say "IMO".
[Bo]
> I don't know what "your" intellect is, but if it is
> the "symbol manipulation" one,
[SA currently]
My intellect is not only the "symbol manipulation
one", but my intellect is a work in progress. My
intellect recognizes the birds singing, the fire
glowing. My intellect experiences life practically.
My intellect is quiet, and thus, symbol manipulation
is absent from time to time. My intellect is an
exercise that can try to explain itself, but
explanation is not the same as my living intellect.
Thank you for asking.
[Bo]
> 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.
[Bo quotes Pirsig]
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.
[SA currently]
All of this means nothing without value, that's
the point of an intellect that tries to dominate
society with S/O.
[SA previously]
> 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..
[Bo]
Do you see me as denying that (in you peculiar words)
"value and
morals are intellectual and social"?
[SA currently]
Yes. You said that intellectual is S/O. Pirsig
points out that S/O thinking only is void of value and
morals. That's from the quote you gave many posts
ago, and the quote I pasted above in this post. I
said this many posts ago, and finally it seems your
taking your interpretation more seriously and
recognizing what you seem to be saying. You keep
saying the moq is 'outside' of the levels. I keep
asking how can the moq be 'outside' of anything. The
moq is supposed to be an intellectual pattern of
reality. So, how is quality 'outside' of reality.
Quality is supposed to be reality according Pirsig.
Until something better comes along...
[Bo]
I.e: that the 3rd and 4th.
levels aren't static value levels? If so you certainly
show a spirit
of misunderstanding.
[SA currently]
It is you that insists that the 4th level is only
S/O, and that the 'moq' is outside in some meta-level.
I've said this many times to you, but this is why
your interpretation is only complicating matters. The
moq is fine without a SOL interpretation. I don't see
your dissatisfaction with the moq. I don't see why
you think you need to have a SOL to interpret the moq.
The moq is plainly, straight forward.
night woods,
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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/
