Dear David.
3 July you said:.
> One doesn't need to "deduce" the discrepancy between concepts and
> reality from the DQ/sq distinction because that distinction and the
> discrepancy are exactly the same thing. Concepts are static
> intellectual patterns and reality is Dynamic Quality.
You seem oblivious to the fact that the first DQ/SQ distinction is the
inorganic one and its perception of value is not by concepts nor is the
biological, only with the social level and language did concepts enter
the scene, but only with intellect did the the reality/concept distinction
occur. Your resistance shows how immensely strong intellect's ties are
- they want to dominate the scene - but these must be torn if one is to
enter Quality's meta-level.
> This doesn't mean concepts are unreal. It only means that there static
> concepts are qualitatively different than dynamic reality. That's why
> DQ can't be defined. You can't have a definition without concepts and
> DQ is the pre-conceptual reality. One doesn't deduce the latter from
> the former because the latter IS the former.
I know this perfectly well. The intellectual level is static and it's (in this
case) reality/concept distinction is the highest value, but not reality
itself and when examined it merges with its social parent. Your
mistake is to have concepts (ideas) as intellect's patterns. As said a
million times social level mankind had language, but did not recognize
any reality/concept split, this came with intellect, and in the Turner
letter Pirsig said that intellect emerged with the Greeks ...have you
forgotten?
dmb says:
> Huh? Concepts ARE differentiations.
Again, the static differentiation begins with the inorganic level, only
with the intellectual level did the reality/language split occur. The
differentiation between a reality out there and concepts in our minds is
INTELLECT's VALUE.
> dmb says:
> Again, this distinction does not mean that concepts are unreal. They
> are real AS concepts, as static patterns.
All your troubles stems from the fallacy that the intellectual level's
patterns are concepts or ideas. It's master-pattern is the S/O split and
its many off-shoots: Mind/matter, soul/body, mental/corporeal,
culture/nature, reality/concepts ... etc..
=================== STOP PRESS ======================
> Even in the MOQ, distinctions have to made and concepts have to be
> involved or you don't have any kind of philosophy.
Yes, this IS the very heart of the matter and this post should only have
been about this point. Language is the medium we live by and must
NOT be involved (except as coming to pass sometime in history) If we
try to include it f.ex by saying that existence's deepest split is between
reality and language it's a catastrophe. It makes the MOQ a subset of
SOM (which IS the very reality/language split) and inherits all its
platypuses. While SOM as the 4th level makes all puzzle bits fall into
place. The paradoxes are explained by the intellect's static quality,
while all its benefits are intact.
====================================================
> The trick is to make bettedistinctions than the other guy and
> Pirsig's distinctions are designed to do just that, with the "other
> guy" in this case being SOM. The MOQ's distinction between dynamic and
> static replaces the distinction between subjects and objects.
Agreement, but SOM can't be jettisoned it must find a place within the
MOQ and intellect is the obvious place.
> Pirsig isn't saying that subjects are more real than objects nor is he
> saying objects are more real than subjects. He's saying that both of
> thes are static concepts derived from dynamic reality.
I wonder where he says that they are static concepts, in my book he
says they are static PATTERNS, the former social and intellectual, the
latter inorganic and biological. I don't buy this, but that can wait.
> He's saying SOM itself is just an idea derived from the primary
> empirical reality. He's saying that SOM commits "the error of
> conferring existential status upon the products of reflection". He's
> saying subjects and objects are reified concepts, are abstractions that
> are mistaken for concrete realities.
Sure, SOM or intellect is derived - all levels are "derived" from the
parent level by DQ's assistance.
Bodvar
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/
