Chris eta l, I've been following this thread silently ... it seems for a large part like a re-run of many earlier threads ...
My summary .... clearly, most real situations / things / people are complex mixtures of dynamic qualities and SPOV's across multiple levels. Few things in the real world are one simple pattern in one level. We have patterns in patterns in patterns ... The levels are the model or framework from which reality is constructed - an ontology based on quality - ontologies are "deemed" for the purposes of analysis and synthesis. Higher levels are "better" than lower levels simply by MoQ definition. A higher level has the "moral right" to override a lower level, but should not recklessly undermine the foundations on which it is itself built. The levels are about value judgements, so "better" is valid shorthand. The levels need to make enough sense as distinct things, in order for a description of the world in their terms to make sense. So we are right to debate what each distinct level means. 1/2 and 2/3 seem clear enough. The debate about the distinction between levels 3 & 4 remains. SOMism and symbolic manipulation do not seem to be limited to either (3) social or (4) intellectual levels exclusively. (something like "authority" and "freedom of thought" seem to be clearer distinguishing features - though socio-cultural factors complicate what passes for free thinking rationale ... has always been my argument against Bo.) No idea if that helps ? Ian On 2/11/08, Christoffer Ivarsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > God Afton > > Heather wrote: > > > SA: Chris, what you might not know, or you may, I > > don't know, is that the levels do get better morally. > > Each level is good. Each level is quality. Yet, > > morally, the levels get better from inorganic to > > intellectual, and sometimes it seems Bo relegates a > > pattern to a lower level to keep his SOL > > interpretation better than the rest. Bo confines the > > intellectual level to mean one event, the S/O > > distinction event. Yet, I do have a question for you > > Bo, if you may. You have mentioned that the S/O > > intellect can be regarded as not a split, but as > > integrated or something - I can't remember the exact > > wording. So, do you see the intellect performing two > > duties? One of splitting s/o and one of integrating > > s/o, and if so, then wouldn't this defining of s/o be > > different in respect to performance enacted? > > > I am young, and compared to a lot of you I am very new to this, but I firmly > believe that a fundamental mistake is taking place here. I feel that the > major criticism of the SOL is mainly based on some vague impression that if > rationality (SOM) is the 4th level that would diminish the Quality of the > other levels - that to recognize that would be saying that the other levels > aren't as "Good". It is not really so. They are static patterns of Good, all > by themselves, and nothing diminishes that. The SOL makes a quite clear cut: > I think this is what Bodvar means, it doesn't leave anything, It doesn't > harm anything, it's a tool, to make the MOQ work as good as possible. I > think It might do just that. Nothing is lost, but a lot is gained. I think > it is as simple as that. I say, and do please challenge me on this, that > most of the opposition to this comes from the misunderstanding of the SOL > diminishing everything that is not within the 4th level. It doesn't really > do that. This is not advocating the SOM, this is not going back to a preZMM > understanding, it is just making the MOQ run more smoothly. > > > > Chris, the SOL interpretation is just about what the > > identity of the intellect is. This "depending on what > > level is the dominant" and such is Pirsig's original > > moq. I don't know if "dominant" is a proper way to > > put it. I would probably say the level is a certain > > pattern of value. The brain can be biological, and > > the other levels, too. It does depend on the what > > patterns are being referred to, and such. > > And this is not in conflict with the MOQ as such. And it is not in conflict > with regarding the SOM as the 4th level. There really isn't a problem. > > > > IMO > > Chris > > > 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/
