On Wednesday 22 October 2008 12:03 AM Bo writes to Marsha:
Marsha originally:
> > > What is the nature of a pattern in the Inorganic Level?
Bo
> >Inorganic patterns of value is the first stage of the static
> >hierarchy. This stage loosely corresponds to SOM's "nature" but
> >the comparison must not be taken too literally because it does
> >not simply mean "matter" but includes the forces (that in SOM
> >are immaterial) and fields ... whatever.
> >Pirsig's about MOQ's level arrangement not being new is a
> >little misleading as it really don't match at all - MOQ and
> >SOM are worlds apart - but more about this later if you want to
> > pursue this subject.
Marsha now:
> I'd be most grateful to have someone go through this with me.
> My question is not so much what does an inorganic spov
> represent, but what is the nature of a spov in the Inorganic
> Level. My thinking is that it is primarily conceptual (although
> it has an emotional component). As a pattern of value is
> conceptual, it has as its referent inorganic phenomena.
[Bo]
The MOQ starts by rejecting SOM's subject/object divide as reality's basic
split (in favor of its own dynamic/static one) thus there is no conceptual
as contrasted to "real" (inorganic static patterns in this case) at least
when we see things from MOQ's dynamic position outside its static hierarchy.
However the former SOM has become the intellectual level and here the S/O
rules and here we may speak about language concepts as different from what
it is about. "The nature of a spov" conveys the same "forbidden" S/O split
outside of intellect. There is no nature to inorganic patterns, no emotional
component or anything.
And yet we can't be all Zen-ish (cagey) regarding the levels and I've found
this list of their respective "expressions" most useful:
Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason
Inorganic value expresses itself as interaction, the biological by
sensation, the social by emotion and intellect by reason.
[Marsha]
> When I use the word conceptual, I mean a spov is primarily
> mental activity. I do not mean a nice neat definition, or
> primarily language, but all that can be held in mind pertaining
> to the phenomena? Am I making any sense this far?
[Bo]
Mental as contrasted to corporeal is another S/O. Your "...I use the
word..." seems to imply that we live inside a conceptual bubble impossible
to escape, but this is seen from intellect's S/O. As seen from the MOQ
language is nothing more than a most useful social pattern, this one
intellect adapt for conveying its own S/O-reasoning among those that
language belongs to a conceptual realm different
from what it conceptualize.
Do this make sense to you?
Bo
Hi Marsha, Bo, and all,
I read Magnus¹ essay on moq.org and I questioned what do ³words mean²?
Awareness and conceptualization are different. IMO this difference is
echoed in the analogy of the levels.
>From a DQ/SQ perspective it seems the ³Big bang² is DQ and inorganic
patterns are SQ
>From moq.org
The Levels Undressed
An Inquiry Into The Static Levels Of The Metaphysics Of Quality
By Magnus Berg
September 2008
<snip>
[Magnus]
³Going backwards once more, to find the next lower level border where space,
time and gravity were created, we of course find the big bang. Before that,
we don't know much about the state of reality. But that's probably only
because science, in this case physics, depend too much on space, time and
other things that was created by the big bang. The day we learn how to live
without those underlying assumptions, we will be able to say much more about
reality before the big bang.²
[Joe]
What comes before DQ? Don¹t ask, don¹t tell!
[Magnus]
³Having said that, the MoQ (with these new levels) do give us some clues. To
describe the reality before the big bang, all we really need to do is to
take the reality we know existed after the big bang, and then remove the
level created by the big bang event. The MoQ tells us that the big bang was
a dynamic event, which created space, time and gravity. But what did the
universe right after the big bang exist of apart from that?²
<snip>
[Joe]
IMO Magnus uses the word ³created² to describe the origin of space, time,
and gravity. The Big Bang of physics is an analogy to the DQ of metaphysics
to explain evolution to an inorganic level. He describes this, but how does
he conceptualize it? Pirsig suggests DQ/SQ!
[Joe]
Bo, then, in his reply to Marsha ³Inorganic patterns of value is the first
stage of the static hierarchy.² Describes The SQ inorganic pattern without
alluding to the DQ big bang. How has he conceptualized this? How does he
know? He trusts the analogy to DQ in himself to underlie the
conceptualization.
IMO Pirsig makes so much sense with the division of quality into DQ/SQ.
Analogies and metaphors have a meaning in philosophical arguments!
Joe
On 10/22/08 12:03 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marsha
>
> 19 Oct. :
>
> Marsha originally:
>
>>>> What is the nature of a pattern in the Inorganic Level?
>
> Bo
>>> Inorganic patterns of value is the first stage of the static
>>> hierarchy. This stage loosely corresponds to SOM's "nature" but the
>>> comparison must not be taken too literally because it does not simply
>>> mean "matter" but includes the forces (that in SOM are immaterial)
>>> and fields ... whatever.
>
>>> Pirsig's about MOQ's level arrangement not being new is a little
>>> misleading as it really don't match at all - MOQ and SOM are worlds
>>> apart - but more about this later if you want to pursue this subject.
>
> Marsha now:
>> I'd be most grateful to have someone go through this with me.
>
>> My question is not so much what does an inorganic spov represent, but
>> what is the nature of a spov in the Inorganic Level. My thinking is
>> that it is primarily conceptual (although it has an emotional
>> component). As a pattern of value is conceptual, it has as its
>> referent inorganic phenomena.
>
> The MOQ starts by rejecting SOM's subject/object divide as reality's
> basic split (in favor of its own dynamic/static one) thus there is no
> conceptual as contrasted to "real" (inorganic static patterns in this
> case) at least when we see things from MOQ's dynamic position
> outside its static hierarchy. However the former SOM has become the
> intellectual level and here the S/O rules and here we may speak about
> language concepts as different from what it is about. "The nature of a
> spov" conveys the same "forbidden" S/O split outside of intellect.
> There is no nature to inorganic patterns, no emotional component or
> anything.
>
> And yet we can't be all Zen-ish (cagey) regarding the levels and I've
> found this list of their respective "expressions" most useful:
>
> Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason
>
> Inorganic value expresses itself as interaction, the biological by
> sensation, the social by emotion and intellect by reason.
>
>> When I use the word conceptual, I mean a spov is primarily mental
>> activity. I do not mean a nice neat definition, or primarily language,
>> but all that can be held in mind pertaining to the phenomena? Am I
>> making any sense this far?
>
> Mental as contrasted to corporeal is another S/O. Your "...I use the
> word..." seems to imply that we live inside a conceptual bubble
> impossible to escape, but this is seen from intellect's S/O. As seen
> from the MOQ language is nothing more than a most useful social
> pattern, this one intellect adapt for conveying its own S/O-reasoning
> among those that language belongs to a conceptual realm different
> from what it conceptualize.
>
> Do this make sense to you?
>
> 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/
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/
