Hi Bo, > > Who had written (I believe): >> > For instance, if social patterns are "unconscious copying >> > of behavior" and intellectual patterns "unconscious >> > copying of rationales of behavior, then does this suggest >> > that intellectual patterns might usurp our behavior >> > entirely if we were to become entirely guided by >> > rationales of behavior? Or does the "unconscious" bit >> > signify a trait we are unlikely to shake, and therefore such >> > a dream (well into its third millennium) equally unlikely? > > "Unconscious copying"? My foot! There is no consciousness in the > MOQ.
Steve: The MOQ has a place for everything or it wouldn't be a very good philosophical system. In the MOQ an individual consciousness is a collection of social and intellectual patterns in ongoing evolution in response to Quality. When we talk about the phenomenon of consciousness as self-awareness in MOQ terms we are talking about the intellectual pattern of identifying the collection of patterns of value called "I" as distinct from all other patterns. I know that you will say that I am "stuck in SOM" in saying say so, since this is your favorite epithet for anyone who disagrees with you. But note that I am not making the problematic ontological distinction between "mental stuff" and "physical stuff" (subjects and objects) that characterized SOM. Everything is response to Quality whether we are talking about rocks and trees or self-awareness. > Steve: >> I agree with Pirsig that social patterns evolved prior to intellectual >> patterns. I just don't think that picking a moment in time for the >> occurence of the first intellectual pattern is important especially >> since this same evolution of patterns occurs every day as biological >> babies begin to participate in social patterns and later begin to >> participate in intellectual patterns. I also think that if we all >> agree that the first intellectual pattern occurred on such and such a >> date, we would still have little idea about what is meant by a social >> pattern as opposed to an intellectual pattern which was Mary's >> original question. Bo: > What about the event described in ZAMM as SOM emerging from the > Aretê past, isn't this a pretty convincing "candidate for the occurrence > of the intellectual level from the social ditto? A "moment in time" > depends, this transition definitely did not happen overnight, Western > philosophy history often begins with Thales (585 BC) but there may > have been a whole string of thinkers of whom the earliest began to > doubt the Greek mythological-social past. We know from Homer's > "Iliad" that it describes the said past, but then no one is sure when he > lived, maybe it was his longing for a the good old days. Steve: This is all beside the point. What I'm saying is that saying all this sort of stuff just doesn't address Mary's issue about distinguishing types of patterns of value. Maybe she'll find it valuable, but the above just sounds to me like your usual attempt to hijack every thread for your monomoniacal obsession with SOLAQI, which Pirsig has time and again said is not a correct interpretation of his philosophy. I assume that Mary was asking about Pirsig's MOQ rather than Bo's twist. Best, Steve 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/
