Andre, Bo and Ron,
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Andre Broersen <[email protected]>wrote: > Bodvar to Andre and Ron: > > Andre had said:: > > ?I am beginning to wonder to what extent the intellectual level > > dominates the play in patterning the undifferentiated? Just laterally > > drifting. > > Bodvar: > Intellect is? the highest and best "patterner". John jumping in] I say the highest and best patterner is the biological, Biocentrism. Some revere the social level, which has all the power to actually get things done. Some say the since everything at its root is made of non-organic patterns and everything returns eventually to this level, it is actually the boss of all the others. The only reason you say reason is you have reasoned this from your reasoning. AND, I think I see more of the elephant than any other blind man out there, because my level can beat up your level. See? This chaos is why I deem a hierarchical interpretation or the levels as ridiculous. It's like saying an F chord is higher and better than a C chord. Sure there's a chord progression, just as there is an evolution of levels, but that progression is nothing so static as a simple straightline hierarchy of "higher and better" value. An "ascending chord" of music is progressing toward something, but what its progressing toward is higher quality in its entire process, not progressing toward some chords which are intrinsically better than others. Quality is not subjugation and dominance; Quality is harmonic. Andre] You see, I thought there were five moral systems within the MoQ 'connecting' the four levels, each of which has very little to say to the other (they are 'discrete'), they have their own agenda, and do not understand eachother's 'language'. The inorganic level is patterned according to the laws of physics, the organic level is patterned according to the laws of nature etc etc. this seems to me to be a participatory process of DQ/SQ not intellect 'on its own' (otherwise you'd get into an idealist frame n'est pas?). John, muttering and grumbling] I don't see what's so wrong with an idealistic framework... better than ending up like Ron says: In fact it simply furthers SOM and it's dogma as absolute by stating that evolution is the truth and Pirsigs interpetation (via Bo) of it is reality. It goes against the entire theme of RMP's work, that scientific dogma is an illusion and not realizing this creates paradox, ie:stuckness, gumption traps, blind spots. 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/
