Ron, DMB, Khoo, Spirit, Arlo, Moqtalk.
8 Jan. Ron wrote regarding the Newton talks in ZAMM:
> Good observation, its almost like because of the nature of what
> Moq is addressing, linguistically it commits suicide. When
> It gets to "symbol-as" it then enters Intellectual paradox, naturally.
> It's almost like when one arrives at the edge of syntax "it is", one
> conceptually reaches reflections and distortion. Quality, for me, is a
> mental state. An orientation. An alignment. Once so aligned,
> intellectual patterns take on new meaning. Yes an intellectual pattern
> is an intellectual pattern But state of mind is key.
You allegedly are in some agreement with me, but this is too far-
fetched.
----------------
After some inscrutable exchange between Steve and Ron DMB
wrote
> All these terms refer to experience. The MOQ makes a distinction
> between static and dynamic, then further subdivides static quality into
> four levels. What's the problem? This leaves EVERY place for Quality.
> According to the MOQ there is a place for nothing EXCEPT Quality. There
> is nothing, no experience, that ISN'T quality. The pre-intellectual
> reality is DQ so that it is neither static nor intellectual. DQ refers
> to experience, the cutting edge of experience, prior to
> intellectualizations or any static interpretations. I can't speak for
> Steve here, but I think he agrees.
I had hoped that you Dave also would address the original issue
of this thread instead of these bland matter-of-courses.
---------
The 8th of January Khoo said:
> Its all about patterns. Physical, Biological, Social, Then there are
> the Intellectual ones. We think out how the physical, biological, and
> social patterns are supposed to work and think that our intellectual
> patterns are superior to these other patterns. That is the us and 'em
> outlook; the SOM divide.
Right! From within the 4th. level it's looks like a study of the
world. And even more correct: this is SOM! But intellect's studies
( physics, biology, sociology and psychology) are not of "patterns
of value", this context is only seen from the MOQ.
> But patterns exist whether we think about them or not. The
> intellectual level by itself is a dead end.
Agree. A view from the MOQ is needed to see intellect as SOM -
the value of the S/O distinction.
> The intellectual level exists only because the other levels made it
> possible. But of course the intellectual level made us aware that there
> are patterns. But aware, thats all.
More agreement! The 4th. level rests on top of the lower, but it is
just as blind to the totality as the rest. Awareness of the Q context
is only achieved at the MOQ.
> By imposing an intellectual pattern on the other levels, we think we can
> shape the other patterns. But we are faced with a question: what's a good
> pattern and what's not. If we try to decide by ourselves at the
> intellectual level what's a good pattern or not, we are unlikely to find
> any answers there. Its a dead end.
Right! After this you become a bit enigmatic ;-)
----------------
The 8th. Spirit said:
> > Bo now:
> > You say that the intellectual level contains
> > descriptions of DQ
> > (which it doesn't, it says it's indefinable)...
> Isn't that a contradiction Bo? You say intellectual
> level contains no descriptions of DQ, but then you go
> on to describe dq.
Where exactly do Ich describe DQ?
Sieg Heil!
-----------------------
Arlo on the same thread:
> Just before, Pirsig sums it up nicely. "Mental patterns do not
> originate out of inorganic nature. They originate out of society,
> which originates out of biology which originates out of inorganic
> nature." (LILA).
"Mental"? Is that what the intellectual patterns are? In a
metaphysics that solemnly has forsworn the SOM and its
dualisms?! (in this case mental/corporeal) This is from his
method of how the MOQ resolves SOM's mind/matter paradox.
The mind-matter paradoxes seem to exist because the
connecting links between these two levels of value
patterns have been disregarded. Two terms are missing:
biology and society. Mental patterns do not originate out
of inorganic nature. They originate out of society, which
originates out of biology which originates out of inorganic
nature. And, as anthropologists know so well, what a
mind thinks is as dominated by social patterns as social
patterns are dominated by biological patterns and as
biological patterns are dominated by inorganic patterns.
There is no direct scientific connection between mind and
matter.
That intellect originates out of society is correct,but because
social patterns are "mental" too (according to "Lila's Child" p.529)
In the MOQ, all organisms are objective. they exist in the
material world. all societies are subjective. they exist in
the mental world".
..the mind/matter problem isn't solved but merely moved to the
biological/social gap. We see that he regards biological patterns
"exist in the material world".
Enough
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/
