[Bo]
Your attitude regarding the MOQ is still a mystery, like Ham you
make some perfunctory gestures to be allowed to partake in the
discussion, but remarks like this betrays you. "Intellect kicks in and
concepts are formed" Is this supposed to be the level? It sounds
more like SOM's internal "mind-intellect".
[Krimel]
It is a mystery why you think my position on the MoQ is mysterious. I think
the MoQ is Taoism stated in a way that westerners can "get it." I think the
problems with the MoQ results from Pirsig's poor choice of terms to describe
Taoism. Taoism is the metaphysical foundation of Zen. I think part of the
problem is that Pirsig actually begins with Zen instead of Lao Tsu and that
is a source of some of the confusion. Buddhists merged their philosophy with
Chinese metaphysics in much that same way the Christians merged Greek
philosophy with Jewish ethics.
[Bo]
Look, there were people
on this planet for thousands upon thousands of years before the
intellectual level and when they spoke words were these
"intellectual concepts" ... before intellect?.Seems like the true
nature of the said level never will make it through. Well from you it
can't be expected but DMB?
[Krimel]
There have been "people" on this planet for about 300,000 years. We know
next to nothing about how those people lived and thought for about 250,000
of those years. All we know about any of our distant ancestors comes from
their trash and from their writing. Writing begins about 6,000 years ago and
frankly just the act of putting chisel to stone seems intellectual enough
for me. You seem to think you can just set up a bunch of conceptual chess
pieces and move them around and pretend you are making sense. We have no
reason to think that "people" 300,000 did not have language. We know that
even our closest relatives, the ape have sophisticated social relationship
and can communicate their emotions and intentions to con-specifics. Even if
you want to see levels in any of this you will not find a sharp dividing
line anywhere with which to carve out discrete levels.
> [Krimel]
> Concepts and ideas are not "things." They are distilled from our
> perceptions of the immediate moment. They don't fit into containers
> they do not have desires and they do not compete with each other.
[Bo]
Right, at the intellectual level concepts aren't "things" but some
subjective reflection of the "things" they denote. What they are
distlled from I leave to you to ponder, the point is that intellect is a
static level that emerged out of the static social level that surely
"had" language but did not see it this way, that knew no
subjective/objective distinction.
[Krimel]
Intellect is a biological function that evolved in higher primates. It is
what assures the survival of our species. Social behavior evolves even
earlier. Even more importantly there are certain aspects of the
parasympathetic nervous system that evolved in mammals. These include
elaborations of the structures of the midbrain and the development of the
vagus nerve which moderates and perpetuates emotional responses. These major
elaborations in the development of specifically social emotions are what
bond species members together. You can see that this is critical in mammals
because it facilitates the growth of mammalian offspring who are not mature
enough at birth to survive. The parents are programmed to be attached to
each other and the infant. The vagus nerve for example contains high levels
of the hormone oxitocin which promotes feels of connectedness and
compassion.
[Bo]
The MOQ is no intellectual pattern
(rather the other way round) so it does not have any notion of the
language as subjective in contrast to the "things" it reflect or - God
forbid - that pre-concept=DQ and concepts=SQ, this is a travesty,.
[Krimel]
This seems to be a critical point that you really don't seem capable of
understanding. The MoQ IS an intellectual pattern. It IS stated in words. It
IS written down. It IS read. It IS heard. It IS constructed of words. It is
an INTELECTUAL pattern. It does not have any "notion" of language or
anything else, because it does not have a mind or desires or notions of its
own. It is not a being. It is a collection of ideas. Nothing more and until
you figure this out you will continue to impress newcomers while the folks
who have thought about this for a while just think you are dense.
[Bo]
Slowly yourself: In ZAMM P. points Plato out as a major figure in
the evolution of SOM that began as search for eternal principles
that - with Plato - had evolved in the Idea/Appearance dichotomy,
the former eternal, the latter transient. Through many twists and
turns this evolved into what Pirsig called SOM (sometimes
mind/matter) and what MOQ's Dynamic/Static Quality is supposed
to replace.
[Krimel]
Frankly the mind/matter incarnation of this particular duality is a much
clearer and better statement of the issue than SOM but so be it. To the
extent that SQ/DQ do actually replace mind/matter it is because they
actually are more fundamental in nature. The mind/matter myth leaves the
impression that mind could even conceivably exist in the absence of matter.
This is foolishness. Mind/subjects emerge from matter. They cannot and do
not exist independently of matter. This isn't even a metaphysical problem
just a mistaken way of seeing the world. Static and dynamic on the other
hand ARE fundamental properties. Energy takes the form of waves (dynamic)
and particles (static). Relationships between one thing and another are
either consistent or in flux. I mention this because in order for anything
to happen in any universe, under any physics or metaphysics, a distinction
has to be made. There has to be a fundamental relationship. I would say that
the MoQ identifies this distinction as being between Static and Dynamic
Quality.
> [Krimel]
> The immediate present is changing slipper, unpredictable on this side
> of the pond we call that Dynamic. Nothing it lost here.
[Bo]
The term "eternal" may superficially resemble "static", but to
equate "transient" with "dynamic" is far from the MOQ idea.
[Krimel]
It is far from YOUR idea of the MoQ. Ham's Absolute Source for example or
the concept of Zero are the ultimate in Static Quality. It's opposite,
infinity or a term I really like "information entropy" are the ultimate in
Dynamic Quality. Pure uncertainty, incompressible into simpler terms.
[Bo]
Worse it become if/when objective=static and subjective=dynamic. How
lost is it possible to be? That you who don't know or care for the
MOQ is forgivable but DMB?
[Krimel]
I have not equated objective=static and subjective=dynamic. I don't think
they do equate and frankly I think almost all of the talk here about SOM is
nonsense. They are confusing, ill defined terms which just provide an excuse
for missing the point.
> [Krimel]
> I went over this about three times yesterday in different ways. What
> you are having trouble with here is the version simplified so that
> Poincare's six year old could understand it. Quality is the dynamic
> ever changing immediate continuous present. Concepts are fix, discrete
> and static.
[Bo}
Static Quality is Quality too FYI.
[Krimel]
Duh!
[Bo]
But say, are "concepts" the same as language or have i missed
something. If so is there anything pre- or non-conceptual in this
world? That is if language is seen in the somish way as all or
nothing at all. Isn't the pointing out of a "pre-conceptual, immediate
..etc. conveyed by language? I thought only Marsha was ... enough
to buy a non-language reality ...again if language is seen the said
way!
[Krimel]
Concepts are ideas. They generally involve language as the format we use to
reproduce them from one person to another. I also tend to think of concepts
as fitting into a larger framework of other concepts. But James is really
the authority on this:
"The great difference between precepts and concepts is that percepts are
continuous and concepts are discrete. Not discrete in their _being_, for
conception as an act is part of the flux of feeling, but discrete from each
other in their several meanings. Each concept means just what it singly
means, and nothing else; and if the conceiver does not know whether he means
this or means that, it shows that his concept is imperfectly formed. The
perceptual flux as such on the contrary _means_ nothing and is but what it
immediately is."
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/
