Andre and Ron
29 Sep.:
Andre once said:
> I am beginning to wonder to what extent the intellectual level
> dominates the play in patterning the undifferentiated? Just laterally
> drifting.
Ron commented:
> I'd say most?all of it. The four levels spring from the intellectual.
> inorganic,organic and social are intellectual patterns of value, the
> intellectual level, is an intellectual pattern of value.
Andre anew:
> Hi Ron, this is a bit confusing in a similar way that Annotation 102 is
> confusing where Pirsig argues that 'the key to integrating the MoQ with
> science (SOM) is through philosophic idealism, which says that objects
> grow out of ideas, not the other way around...' I find it confusing
> because, going back to ZMM for a minute, when Phaedrus was asked by the
> philosophy professor: What comes first? Phaedrus knew it wasn't even
> rhetoric, it was Quality. Out of the Quality event evolved the
> inorganic, organic social and intellectual levels...and since the MoQ
> adheres to the Darwinian theory of evolution (as a high quality
> intellectual pattern whereby DQ is posited as the 'driving force') in
> that specific order.
Now, this is good! The first who dares point to some of the Lila's Child
annotations as incomprehensible SOMish
Ron:
> But the main revealation the MoQ brings to the table, is that
> experience can be differentiated and interpreted in many different
> ways.
Andre:
> And this interpretation is mediated through the intellectual level
> which emerged from the social level which emerged from the organic
> level which emerged from the inorganic level which emerged from DQ
It's the intellectual level - after first having postulated a subjective and
an objective reality - postulates that objective reality can be
interpreted in countless subjective ways. The MOQ on the other hand
(as Andre says) postulates that DQ has spawned the known levels -
each a particular way of "interpreting experience" - intellect's the one
said above.
Not to be rude, but Ron is deep in the SOM quagmire and refuses to
he cry for assistance. .
Ron:
> Overcoming "stuck-ness" and gumption traps...this second way accepts
> the first method and does not reject much of anything other than it's
> absolute-ness in thought, the belief that there?is one and only one
> true way to interpret experience. The "Gods eye" view.
Andre:
> I agree with the stucknes and gumption traps but suggesting a 'God's
> eye' view is a bit much Ron. To what extent is this view grounded in
> experience?
> The intellectual level is a filtering process without which we would
> not be able to operate. The MoQ is the most transparent filter to date
> and at the same time suggests to keep our feet firmly on the ground.
> imho.
Er ... It's possible to "operate" outside the intellectual level, there are
whole cultures these days refusing to "enter" it. They are as intelligent
and capable as anyone and yet .... remember how Pirsig points to
intellect only taking command in the Western culture after WW1. It
began its influence from day one in Greece, but only Renaissance and
Enlightenment gave it real momentum.
Agree about the MOQ "filter". According to Pirsig the Oriental culture
had an intellectual bout, but (IMO) transcended it for a Quality-like
attitude without developing a SOM and I think this crucial. MOQ could
fight itself free from intellect-as-SOM thereby having to work out a
system that can be understood by intellect. While the Orientals - at
least the Buddhist - just sounds "mystical". Well. a bit unasked for
this.
For Ron. You spoke of me chastising Doug Renselle for his notorious
production of levels - quantum such - which was his craze - but he was
also hung up in the "many truths" issue. Something I never have
understood the point of. TRUTH (in the sense of the notion of an
objective reality independent of what we subjectively think about it) is
the intellectual level's hallmark, and because the MOQ is "out of SOM,
out of intellect" Pirsig had to present the MOQ as better ... more true.
It will have enough trouble being understood without adding to its
burden. Hope you see the self-contradictio in saying that the MOQ is
just another subjective opinion..
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/
