Hi Bo,
> Bo earlier (on Pirsig's letter): >>> Well, what's your conclusion? Doesn't it look as if the SOL >>> interpretation is behind Pirsig's MOQ. I mean something to be >>> deduced from it? > > Steve: >> I have no problem with the definition of the intellectual level as >> patterns of value recognized as manipulations of abstract patterns of >> experience...... > Bo: > Look, when a dog dreams about chasing cats (as we may conclude it > does when asleep and twitching its legs) it surely "manipulates former > experience" (memory). That this is "abstract" is intellect's S/O > judgement, the dog does not know that it's dreaming. Steve: I'm no expert on dreams, but I think it is a very interesting subject (not interpreting them, just what are they for.) I think that you are probably right to say that a dog may dream of chasing cats. This is to assume that dogs are having experiences like we are when we twitch while asleep like you say. I would say that the dog's brain is simulating experiencing the types of patterns that it experiences while awake which I think are just inorganic and biological (possibly social). I can't be as precise as I'd like to be here because I don't know enough about what dreams are. Bo: > The point is that we don't conclude that the dog is at the > intellectual > level, do we? Steve: No, dogs don't think in the sense of the participating in intellectual patterns even when they are asleep! They are always incapable of providing rationales for their behavior. Only humans can do that. Bo: > The social level adopted this biological capability, Steve: You always lose me when you start anthropomorphizing levels... Bo: > but nor > at this level did the it dawn on humankind that dreams, thinking > (silent > language) or spoken takes place is abstract and takes place in mind, > this knowledge is intellect's value. Steve: I understand that you think that distinguishing symbol and what is symbolized is the key to understanding the intellectual level. I agree that this is an important distinction that is a fundamental intellectual pattern. I just don't agree that distinguishing symbols and what they symbolize is equivalent to SOM. > Steve ctd: >> These abstract patterns of experinence may be referred to as mental >> objects and they are manipulated by a subject so in this sense you can >> think of intellect as S/O, but it seems that you want to take it >> further and say that the fourth level is SOM. > > Yes, from intellect seen they are mental, abstract, subjective ...etc. > in > contrast to the corporeal, concrete, objective halves, but - as told - > neither the biological nor the social level knew this distinction, > only at > the intellectual level did the enormous VALUE of this distinction > arrive. > I can't fathom how you can questioned this obvious fact ... if not from > sheer spite. > >> You add an M for "metaphysics." To me SOM is recognized as making >> subjective/objective knowledge distinctions which I do not see as the >> foundation of the fourth level. Metaphysics is philosophy. It is >> thinking about thinking. Some people never do this, but all people >> (except severely disabled people) participate in intellectual >> patterns. > > "Metaphysics is thinking about thinking" you say. Steve: I wasn't defining metaphysics. I'm just saying that thinking about metaphysics is thinking about thinking, and few people engage in such behavior regularly. I just can't see how your 4th level jumps past thinking to thinking about thinking--and then you have a 5th meta-level after that! I don't think you should be basing your levels on what is being thought about. Here Pirsig defines metaphysics: "Metaphysics is what Aristotle called the First Philosophy. It's a collection of the most general statements of a hierarchical structure of thought. On one of his slips he had copied a definition of it as "that part of philosophy which deals with the nature and structure of reality." It asks such questions as, "Are the objects we perceive real or illusory? Does the external world exist apart from our consciousness of it? Is reality ultimately reducible to a single underlying substance? If so, is it essentially spiritual or material? Is the universe intelligible and orderly or incomprehensible and chaotic?"" Bo: > I maintain that > intellect is the distinction between thinking and the object of > thinking, > the latter not necessarily physical and may well be other people's > thinking, or one's own previous thoughts, and if these thoughts > are/were metaphysical the result is metaphysics. Steve: But very few thoughts are metaphysical. People make distinctions about objects and symbols for objects without getting all philosophical about it. This is S/O thinking in a way but not SOM. Do you see what I mean? The MOQ is still a collection of ideas communicated in the same sort of way. It doesn't need it's own level. It's not a new type of pattern of value. It's an intellectual pattern. Bo: > However you don't > need to be disabled to blur the S/O distinction, religious devoted > people don't look upon the holy texts as "metaphysics" but Gods > commandments. Steve: No one looks at holy texts as "metaphysics." What do you mean? Of course religious people can see S/O distinctions. They have no confusion between God and the word God or Jesus and pictures of Jesus. Steve: >> I also don't think making the MOQ it's own meta-level makes any sense. > Bo: > You drive me nuts with this. The reality that makes you see things in a > particular way is never part of that reality. Newton's Physics (which > includes Gravity) isn't influenced by gravity. Give reason a chance! Steve: Multiple realities?? I don't know if there is a language barrier in the way or what, but you drive me nuts with this too! I'm trying hard to understand what you mean by metaphysics. To me metaphysics is things people say about reality, to you it somehow is reality. It would help if we both stuck to what RMP means by metaphysics since it is his ideas we are discussing. Pirsig: "You might think from this primary status of metaphysics that everyone would take its existence and value for granted, but this is definitely not so. Even though it has been a central part of philosophy since Ancient Greek times it is not a universally approved field of knowledge. It has two kinds of opponents. The first are the philosophers of science, most particularly the group known as logical positivists, who say that only the natural sciences can legitimately investigate the nature of reality, and that metaphysics is simply a collection of unprovable assertions that are unnecessary to the scientific observation of reality. For a true understanding of reality, metaphysics is too "mystical." ...The second group of opponents are the mystics. ... Historically mystics have claimed that for a true understanding of reality metaphysics is too "scientific." Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty-thousand page menu and no food." Can you agree with any of the things Pirsig says about what metaphysics is in the quote above or this last quote and the opponents to metaphysics as a legitimate field of study? What is your definition of metaphysics? Steve: >> You have to do this because you define the intellectual level not just >> as S/O but as SOM, > Bo: > I DO define the intellectual level as the S/O distinction, but add > that it > is a static level (i.e. blind to the value context) and believe that > the S/O > distinction is reality itself. Again, maybe it is the language barrier, but how can a distinction be reality itself? Are you saying that SOM is a way of seeing reality and that the MOQ is a different way of seeing reality like two different lenses? BO: > The social level does not know the said > context even if there's a lot of thinking going on so why should > intellect? Steve: This is another of those anthropomorphic statements that I can't make sense of. I am trying and I do admire you for being able to speak more than one language. > Steve: >> so the MOQ being a new metaphysics must stand outside. But I see no >> problem putting anyone's intellectual patterns in the intellectual >> level regardless of the content because the intellectual level is just >> a type of pattern, not a metaphysics. Metaphysics is a subset of >> intellect. > Bo: > Had I just known what you deem "intellectual patterns", here it sounds > like a mind that can have various contents, and this even Pirsig has > refuted. Steve: By "intellectual patterns" I just mean patterns of thought. One pattern of thought is making s/o distinctions. Another is establishing cause and effect relationships. Another is drawing conclusions based on the transitive property of logic. Bo: > "Metaphysics" is a concept invented by SOM's instigator > Aristotle and is supposed to mean the deepest possible theory ABOUT > reality, meaning that such subjective theorizing don't have the least > influence on objective reality. Steve: Okay, good, now maybe this is the definition I was asking for. Bo: > The MOQ definition of metaphysics is as > Pirsig says in LILA (before he went on to denounce it) that no-one can > avoid metaphysics, meaning that their explanation of reality is reality > itself. Steve: Aha! Here it is. I think we've stumbled on the root of the problem with SOLAQI. I never had a problem with your claim that S/O distinctions as fundamental to the intellectual level. It is the taking the MOQ out side the 4th level that I could never understand. You do this because you think of SOM and the MOQ not as separate philosophies but as different realities. Your "no one can avoid metaphysics" line comes from Pirsig's addressing the two arguments against metaphysics as a legitimate field of study mentioned above. He sums up his rebuttal to the mystic's opposition with "Getting drunk and picking up bar-ladies and writing metaphysics is a part of life," and the line you paraphrased has to do with the logical positivist's opposition. Pirsig: "He next turned to those of logical positivism: Positivism is a philosophy that emphasizes science as the only source of knowledge. It sharply distinguishes between fact and value, and is hostile to religion and traditional metaphysics. It is an outgrowth of empiricism, the idea that all knowledge must come from experience, and is suspicious of any thought, even a scientific statement, that is incapable of being reduced to direct observation. Philosophy, as far as positivism is concerned, is limited to the analysis of scientific language...But even then the assertion that metaphysics is meaningless sounded false to him. As long as you're inside a logical, coherent universe of thought you can't escape metaphysics. Logical positivism's criteria for "meaningfulness" were pure metaphysics, he thought. But it didn't matter. The Metaphysics of Quality not only passes the logical positivists' tests for meaningfulness, it passes them with the highest marks...It says that values are not outside of the experience that logical positivism limits itself to. They are the essence of this experience. Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects." Steve: He does say, "no one can escape metaphysics," but no where does he imply as far as I can tell that an explanation of reality is reality itself. In fact I don't think that anyone really suffers from this confusion. Not even you. He also only says that "no one can escape metaphysics" when they are inside a "logical, coherent universe of thought." This is not a literal universe. It is just systematic thinking about the nature of reality. Pirsig in fact supports the mystic opposition which says that "Metaphysics is not reality. Metaphysics is names about reality. Metaphysics is a restaurant where they give you a thirty-thousand page menu and no food." That's why the MOQ can sit comfortably in the intellectual level along with every other pattern of thought. Regards, Steve 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/
