----------------------------------------
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:23:00 +0100
> Subject: Re: [MD] The Quality/MOQ dichotomy
>
> Andre
>
> 9 March you wrote :
>
>> In this way, I am still trying to make sense of the seemingly accepted
>> notion here on this discuss that DQ=Reality and anything 'derived'
>> from this Reality ( i.e. SPOV's, SQ, i.e patterned Reality) is somehow
>> 'conceptual' because it has gone through this 'level' we call
>> Intellectual patterns of value. As if some sort of transformation
>> process has taken place at this point and everything turned into
>> something 'intellectual'/ 'conceptual'.
>
> You understand the very source of all trouble: DQ as pre-
> conceptual, all static levels as conceptual.. .
>
>> Is this level not derived from DQ which 'spawned 'inorganic PoV's,
>> which spawned organic PoV's , which spawned Social PoV's, which
>> spawned Intellectual PoV's?
>
> Exactly. the 4th. level is NOT the thinking realm that SOM's
> "intellect" term indicates, but the Subject/Object distinction (in this
> context S=conceptual/ O=non-conceptual)
>
>> In other words, has this level a different (Quality) parent, begotten
>> by different grand parents, who were begotten by different great grand
>> parents who were begotten by ...what?? And 'language' appears to be
>> playing a large part in this but I can play the same reductionist and
>> inductionist game here as well.
>
> In ZAMM's proto (preintellect/intellect) MOQ intellect was the only
> static "level" (and note that P. called it SOM). Later however the
> static range was enlarged to the known 4 level where intellect is
> the last - and out of society!!!. Yet, it's plain that the Aretê era in
> ZAMM is the Social level of the MOQ. But one must do this
> ZAMM-LILA "translation" every time one refers to ZAMM, not like
> DMB roam freely between the two.
>
>> It seems to make more sense to do away with this 'concept-making
>> function' assigned to the intellectual process. It makes much more
>> sense (to me) to describe myself as a collection of SPOV's than as a
>> human being. As Pirsig says: We (Man) are those patterns.(Lila p 158).
>> That is, as a collection of SPOV's I am not some independent primary
>> reality of my own. I am very much a part of the collection of patterns
>> called "Man". It is in this sense that I mean that 'Man' or 'human
>> being' is much more 'conceptual' than SPOV's (because 'we' are
>> patternd reality).
>
> More agreement. This is "the best of Pirsig's", but then he wavers
> and enters SOM's concept-intellect again and it sounds as if
> everything is ideas (look to annotation 97 in "Lila's Child".
Dan:
Bodvar delights in irritating me with his little snipes against the LC
annotations. This is no exception. Most times I just let it go but this, well,
this seems to show a complete lack of understanding concerning ZMM as well as
the MOQ.
Since Bodvar couldn't be bothered, I've reproduced annotation 97 below as well
as the post which resulted in Robert Pirsig's response:
Ken:
This brings me to another problem I have with the MOQ. We and most everyone on
the Lila Squad discuss the MOQ solely in relation to the human race. In this
context, all of this makes sense. It makes sense until we begin to talk about
the operation of Dynamic Quality before sentience. The static patterns of value
start with the inorganic level. This implies that the MOQ existed before
sentience.
Annotation #97:
Within the MOQ, the IDEA that static patterns of value start with the inorganic
level is considered a good IDEA. But the MOQ itself doesn't start before
sentience. The MOQ, like science, starts with human experience. Remember the
early talk in ZMM about Newton's Law of Gravity? Scientific laws without people
to write them are a scientific impossibility. (Robert Pirsig)
Dan comments:
Anyone familiar with ZMM can see immediately what Mr Pirsig is getting at here.
For some reason known only to himself, Bodvar has consistently usurped the MOQ
as well as ZMM to suit his own misguided attempts at rewriting Mr Pirsig's
metaphysics. I don't mean to sound upset but it tends to piss me off when
someone talks dirt about something they have shown no inclination towards
understanding. Let's just leave it at that.
>
>> Rhetoric, (the language used by the Sophists to teach Quality) the
>> child of the myths and poetry of a pre-historic people as a response
>> to the universe around them on the basis of Quality. It is this
>> Quality (and its social vehicle, rhetoric) which is the generator of
>> all we know. And logic/ reason/ rationality came from dialectic and
>> dialectic came from rhetoric. (ZMM p385, my addition).
>
> The Sophists were contemporaries of Socrates & Plato and IMO
> the budding subjectivists of the budding SOM. Translated into
> MOQ: The pre-historic Aretê era was when social value ruled, then
> the emerging intellect that began as a "Logos over Mythos"
> movement, but soon developed its own subjective branch - the
> Sophists - but these weren't the old social Mythos, but is part and
> parcel of intellect.
>
>> But, did the language used by the Sophists (to teach Quality) change
>> drastically or was it the method through which language was applied
>> that underwent a change as a result of the dialecticians?
>
> Language as such was no issue to the budding "subjectivists"
> (Sophists) it was just the medium they excelled in, nor was it to the
> budding "objectivists" (Plato & Co.) Only much later was it
> transformed into something conceptual taking place in minds,
> different from the reality it reflects.
>
>> Intellectually, are we dialecticians or rhetoricians or both or
>> something else again (whatever concepts you apply)?
>
> The early objectivists saw dialectics as the way to truth, while the
> early subjectivists refuted any truth outside "man". In ZAMM it
> looks as if Phaedrus joins the subjective camp, but when ZAMM is
> translated to MOQ a greater picture opens up, the Quality idea
> transcends both.
>
>> This dim time period which slowly but surely gave people the notion
>> that something more could be achieved with this social pattern of
>> value called language.
>
> Right, language followed Q-evolution from society into intellect. In
> intellect's early stage it was used by the objectivists - through
> dialectics - to arrive at truth, by the subjectivists to undermine
> truth, but both camps were "intellectual"
>
> More on the questions later. .
>
> Bodvar
>
_________________________________________________________________
It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster.
http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Same_022009
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/
