On 23 Apr 2008 at 11:47, Heather Perella wrote:
> SA: Bo, your right. But where I have disagreed with
> you from the start is your defining of the
> intellectual level as s/o only. I disagree with that
> assertion. Also, to name dynamic quality a meta-level
> defines dynamic quality, and this can't happen, so I
> agree with what Marsha asserted to you earlier.
Recovering from the shock of being called right by you ;-) ....it
isn't DQ that I call a "meta-level" but the MOQ!!!!(how many
exclamation marks are needed for it to sink in?)
> I don't know anybody here, on this forum, that
> think's the moq is only on the intellectual level.
> The moq is an intellectual pattern on the intellectual
> level, but this intellectual pattern of the moq is one
> level shortsighted due to three other levels existing
> that the intellectual level can't be. Also, this
> intellectual pattern of the moq misses out on dynamic
> quality, which is significant in the whole moq (not
> the intellectual pattern of the moq).
In his "Summary" Pirsig says:
The Metaphysics of Quality itself is static and should be
separated from the Dynamic Quality it talks about. Like
the rest of the printed philosophic tradition it doesn't
change from day to day, although the world it talks about
does.
If he says the MOQ is static it must necessarily be static
intellectual, no? The MOQ is neither static nor dynamic, it is the
the very DQ/SQ universe. "..What it talks about" ...is equally
nonsensical, nothing is outside language, spoken or written or the
silent kind we call "thinking".
To use an Oriental metaphor, it is just another finger
pointing toward the moon. The static language of the
Metaphysics of Quality will never capture the Dynamic
reality of the world but some fingers point better than
others and as the world changes, old pointers and road
maps tend to lose their value.
Isn't the finger metaphor a result of somebody thinking it out and
formulating it by language? To try to circumvent language is self-
defying. It can only impress simpletons:
Religious orthodoxy is composed of old pointers.
Classical science is now an old road map, and modern
science keeps looking for new ones. It is this looking for
new pointers, not the pointer itself, that is the essence of
Dynamic philosophy. What is meant by Dynamic
philosophy was explained best in my introduction to
"LILA's Child".*
A religion is a social pattern, while science is intellectual, but it's
no "old map", science works along the same principle as always.
Pirsig may mean physics which has changed radically and now
defies the old concepts - for example - of "substance".
OK, the gist is that the static patterns belongs to different levels
for the reason that they have something in common. All social
patterns have some "social" aspect to them, all biological
patterns have some "living" aspect to them, hence all intellectual
patterns must have something in common. To you I guess the
commonality is "abstract" or "theoretical", but you forget that
these terms are part of the "S" side of SOM that the MOQ rejects.
This it must be the complete S/O aggregate which is intellect's
value.
It follows that the MOQ which is based on the DQ/SQ-distinction
can by no twist of logic be an intellectual pattern.
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/
