Hi Bo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Language is the social pattern that DQ used for the intellectual
> development, but as said I regard intellect and the MOQ to have
> a level-like relationship so it was intellect's "carbon" I spoke
> about. OK, I'm still thinking and will return to it.
You have more to think about. I think you have a pretty vague understanding
about what a level is and how you recognize a new level when you see one. In
light of that, the expression "level-like" becomes even more fuzzy than it
seems
at first glance.
>>> There were no gravity only the data of things falling to the ground.
>
>> "Only the *data* of things..."??? But what about the THINGS Bo? Didn't
>> the THINGS fall to the ground? I'm talking about the things. Come on!
>> Reality is about more than just talking about it, discussing it, and
>> thinking about it. It's out there as well!
>
> Sure, that's what I said, but Pirsig's point is that ancient times did
> not regard their view as an intellectual explanation of an objective
> reality, but that all world was animated and that "things" wanted
> to come to rest on the ground. Consequently the "explanation/
> reality" reality came to be with SOM (in ZMM ) with the 4th. level
> in LILA.
>
> The same argument was used in other contexts too
>
> He used the number zero as a starter. Zero, originally a
> Hindu number, was introduced to the West by the Arabs
> during the Middle Ages and was unknown to the ancient
> Greeks and Romans. How was that? he wondered. Had
> nature so subtly hidden zero that all the Greeks and all
> the Romans...millions of them...couldn't find it?
>
> And again in a more familiar S/O way later in the same chapter
>
> What is essential to understand at this point is that until
> now there was no such thing as mind and matter, subject
> and object, form and substance. Those divisions are just
> dialectical inventions that came later. The modern mind
> sometimes tends to balk at the thought of these
> dichotomies being inventions and says, ``Well, the
> divisions were there for the Greeks to discover,'' and you
> have to say, ``Where were they? Point to them!''
>
> In ZMM there were no levels, but in a MOQ retrospect it's plain
> that he speaks about the social level when ancient times are
> treated and also that his bashing of SOM becomes a bashing of
> intellect that created the notion of - for example - a zero waiting
> to be discovered and a gravity that waited for Newton to
> formulate it.
You're talking about very different things here. You can't compare gravity, the
S/O division and zero in the same sentence, hardly on the same page.
Gravity is inorganic value that has been around since the big bang. I doubt you
have ever disputed that, you have simply ignored it and you probably will this
time as well.
Now, the similarities between the law of gravity, the S/O division and zero are
that they are all intellectual patterns. We can talk about them using language
and we can represent them in formulas etc. As intellectual patterns, they have
only existed since they were discovered (i.e. first represented) as
intellectual
patterns.
However, the difference between the law of gravity and the S/O division is
*what* those intellectual patterns represent. The intellectual pattern "the law
of gravity" represents an inorganic value that *has* been around since the big
bang. But the intellectual pattern "the S/O division" doesn't represent
anything
*real*, not according to the MoQ anyway.
> Now, had LILA kept intellect=S/O (as in ZAMM) it would have
> been fine, but Pirsig found that the 4th. level wasn't a MOQ sub-
> set rather that the MOQ was a 4th. level pattern, thus "intellect"
> was kept the idea realm it is in SOM. It had just been hijacked by
> the villainous "science" ....etc, and the MOQ became paralyzed
It becomes infinitely more paralyzed if it denies the existence of gravity
before the "law of gravity" was formulated.
>> If you disregard the *things*, then I understand your constant
>> preachings about
>
> I don't disregard things when my focus is on the 4th level, but
> when it's at the MOQ the fundamental split isn't between things
> (matter) and our subjective theories (about them).
The fundamental split is *always* between DQ/SQ, no matter what level is
involved. The law of gravity is just as subjective or objective as gravity
itself. Both are static patterns of value and both are involved in quality
events, and thereby influenced by DQ.
>> I have no difficulty understanding the example, it's you who have
>> difficulty understanding the (or rather, you pretend there is no)
>> difference between: Newton's explanation was so good that it soon
>> transformed physics. and Newton's explanation was so good that it soon
>> transformed our model of physics.
>
> Again this is intellect's S/O, the highest and best static value, but
> not existence's fundamental split.
No, it's not S/O. It's one intellectual pattern representing another pattern.
That's what intellectual patterns *do* and it's the only thing they *can* do,
representing other patterns using language. You're seeing a split where there
is
none and you're making a complete mess of the levels in the process.
Magnus
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/
