Krimel
wrote on 20 July:
> It is hard to recall a set of threads that has so clearly
> demonstrated why the "levels" are at best a secondary feature of the
> MoQ. The inability to clearly delineate between the social and
> intellectual or even to unambiguously state what the intellectual
> level is, jump off the screen with every new post. I have said many
> times similar problems occur at each level. Pirsig puts organic
> chemistry on the inorganic level and creates a social level divorced
> from its biological function. It is a mess
Pirsig' pioneer mission was the Quality=Reality itself, something he
tried to demonstrate through the Hot Stove and various other
examples, and because of this he may have gone a bit lightly over
some level points. And - as we know - the intellectual one soon
became the bone of much contention, something I claim to have
set right with my SOL interpretation (Intellect=the S/O distinction).
Mati (seems to) have accepted the SOL and sees the clarity it
brings regarding the social/intellectual demarcation line. The
problem you mention; a difficult biological/social borderline is new
to me, but may be based on an equally poorly defined social level,
and there truly have been some weird notions of it (Magnus' never-
ending society, and before him Wim (Nusselder) who ... well I don't
remember exactly), only here (re.social) Pirsig is not the source of
confusion.
> But this last bit raises all sorts of questions. How does anything
> Mati proposed constitute a "methodology"? How does: "Describe how
> you see your future and the future of Estonia," constitute a
> research question? It is entirely too vague and contains nothing
> measurable to analyze. Worse yet asking a vague question and
> collecting freeform answers from individuals is a sure fire
> prescription for getting meaningless results. What in Reet's answer
> can be considered "data"? How would her "data" be compared to "data"
> from other respondents?
I interpret Mati's first "Gauntlet" to be about the problem of
presenting the MOQ to an academic panel (=SOM-steeped)
because they aren't able to grasp the higher perspective (that has
their premises as a sub-set ("intellect") of its own).To them intellect
means thinking in general and impossible to transcend. Mati
compares it with Pirsig's anthropology start when P. finally
understood that the anthro's SOM (objective, intellectual )
approach wouldn't yield any results. The metaphysical ground had
to be shifted first, hence the MOQ.
> Even in a purely MoQ context asking a vague question and looking at
> the jumbled answer is only going to produce "intellectual level"
> "data". Reet is telling you what she thinks. This can only be an
> intellectual formulation of her situation.
See "thinking=intellect" to you. Now, try to the follow me. The MOQ
is out of SOM or - after making SOM its own intellectual level " -
out of intellect" and a level-like relationship will emerge between
intellect and the the MOQ. Now any level is the former level's value
patterns controlled by the higher - the intellectual level contains
every social patterns only under intellects control - thus MOQ
contains intellect's "thinking" but now "in Quality's service".
> Is this really what you think an MoQ approach to a scientific study
> would look like?
Until Mai returns from his internet silence I would proffer my own
answer, and as always my spoon-feed approach. As said the
intellectual level "contains" all social patterns (employs them for its
own purpose) The judicial system and police are used to maintain
the democratic values, not to kill opponents of the dictator or
religion (as in true social-value-run societies). Ok, then intellects
"scientific studies" will be carried out exactly as they are done in
intellect-value-run circumstances only now its results will be
interpreted from the Quality perspective.
IMO
Bo
PS.
I see that Mati is back but I haven't yet studied his last.
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/
