Hi Bo, You may be right, but you raise some questions.
On 5 Jul 2009 at 17:10, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Platt > > You said (to me) > > > To put it simply as I understand it: The terms static and Dynamic > > Quality are intellectual, but that to which DQ refers to is not. Thus, > > the reality pointed to by the MOQ cannot be defined, but you know it > > anyway. > > Thanks for the interest in this issue which is the heart of the matter > (as I say in to-day's post to DMB) and I hope you forgive my > professoral tone. The only tone hard to forgive is a tone of intellectual superiority, adopted primarily by academics and their acolytes. >The terms "static", "dynamic" and "quality" are > neither intellectual or anti-intellectual, they are words of the English > language (all languages have the same terms I guess, but that > doesn't matter) In the narrow sense that the symbols "dynamic" and "quality" are English rather than French or Swahili symbols is hardly news. > The term "intellectual" means the ability of > distinguishing between what's objective from what's subjective (as my > dictionary says) which is also the correct definition of the 4th. level's > value - not IDEAS or THOUGHTS as most of the discussion seem to > think. If the English symbol "intellectual" means the ability to distinguish between other and self (objective from subjective) then the symbol applies to my cat UTOE and all other life forms. Even if they may not be self-aware, they act as if they know the difference between self and other. So I don't think that the symbol "intellectual" defines the value of the MOQ 4th level. Rather, what defines the MOQ 4th level is the VALUE OF SYMBOL MANIPULATION over the social level's value of conventional human thoughts, ideas and concepts including the S/O, mind/matter split. From different perspectives we arrive at the same conclusion -- the 4th level's value is NOT concepts, ideas or thoughts. > Now, the notion of language as a subjective reflection of objective > phenomena is a form of intellect's S/O-repertoire and it screws the > MOQ up to say that DQ is ineffable because it is something words > refer to - a concept. Yes, using symbols to reflect an assumed external reality is certainly part of intellect's symbol making repertoire. But since using symbols this way is such a conventional part of human thought I consider it a social level value rather than an intellectual level value. Remember that symbol manipulation (intellect) was created to serve the needs of society for food, shelter, clothing and to identify friends from enemies. To accomplish those goals, the symbolic subject/object division was as necessary for society's survival as it is today. To your other point about how using the symbol "ineffable" to describe DQ "screws up" the MOQ. "Ineffable" means beyond symbolic reflection or representation. I don't see how what is beyond the MOQ can "screw up" the MOQ any more than the symbol "aesthetic" can screw up a poem. >This reality/concept split is intellect's value and if > this is made into a variant of the DQ/SQ - as DMB says - it means > that MOQ becomes a subsidiary of SOM. As argued above, I consider the reality/concept split a social value. It is the basis of conventional thinking and is necessary for survival. What makes up the the intellectual level is symbol manipulation, represented primarily by mathematics, symbolic logic and computer "languages" that dominate today's scientific amoral methodology. By itself, the number 6 is no better or worse than the number 2. That's the problem of the intellectual level, not the S/O split which serves human survival needs well. > DQ's first static fallout is the > inorganic level and words, concepts ..etc. does not come into play > until the social level and language, but even here the reality/concept > discrepancy is not recognized. It came to be with the intellectual level > - with SOM Yes, language is definitely a social level phenomena. Whether or not a difference between reality/concept was recognized or not is irrelevant for its use and purpose at that level. What "came to be" with the intellectual level was 1) the recognition that language is symbol manipulation, and 2) the value of symbol manipulation in understanding and controlling a material world (science). > Finally, the MOQ postulates a DQ/SQ split and says that the dynamic > part is indefinable. What's wrong with that? Is it "defined" just by > saying so in words? Not sure of your point. "Ineffable" means "indefinable" which means unable to be put into words (symbols) other than the symbol "DQ." > So why had Pirsig to postulate a Quality/Concept > meta-metaphysics on top of that? Because the intellectual level omitted morality. > Long ago we all agreed on this only > leading to an infinite regress because this meta-metaphysics is also > expressed in words and needs another meta-meta-meta ....and so on > ad infinity. Right. That's why the necessity for an "ineffable" element in the MOQ. There are no words, no metas, after "ineffable." So for me the bottom line is that the value of the intellectual level is not SOM but symbol manipulation. But in attaining that value, humanity lost its soul. "The world was no doubt in better shape intellectually and technologically but despite that, somehow, the "quality" of it was not good. There was no way you could say why this quality was no good. You just felt it." (Lila, 22) The MOQ brings back quality to modern life As always, I could be wrong. Best regards, Platt. 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/
