Hi Steve
On 22 Dec. u wrote:
> The MOQ has a place for everything or it wouldn't be a very good
> philosophical system.
Really! Does it have a place for SOM with an "M"?
> 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.
Isn't individual consciousness and self-consciousnesss the same
article? And yes, self-consciousness is definitely an intellectual S/O
pattern: the subject aware of its world, but only on the intellectual level
does it carry a "S/O metaphysical load" i.e. the subject/world distinction
being reality's ultimate - unbridgeable - schism.
There is of course an un-metaphysical "individual/other individuals"
distinction on the social level. Yes, particularly at the social level. In
chapter 20 about "celebrity" as a social value LILA says (page 260):
"When you look back into the very first writings in the history of
the Western world, the cuneiform writings on the mud tablets
of babylon, what are they about? Why, they're about celebrity: I
Hammurabi am the big wheel here. I have this many horses
and this many concubines and this many slaves and this many
oxen, and I am the greatest of the great kings there ever were
and you better believe it ... etc."
Not much unconscious copying here rather much wanting to rise
above your fellow being richer, more powerful and the social level is as
active today as it was in Hammurabi's time. I seem to remember that
you referred to Wim Nusselder as the father of the "social as
unconscious copying" definition, but it's a most slanderous and
fallacious definition.
> 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.
Wish I could trust you here,
I had said:
> > 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.
Mary actually said:
I need to get to the rereading, for I am mired in an inability to
distinguish the defining moment separating the Social from the
Intellectual. Why this is so important to me I do not know.
Very clearly about the social-intellectual separation and I suggested
the Aretê-SOM event in ZAMM which MUST be intellect taking off on
the a purpose of its own or the MOQ turns into some nonsense that
no one can make heads or tails of. Where do you place ZAMM's
"Greek" part?
> 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.
Not so fast mister. Pirsig said in an annotation in Lila's Child that there
were "intellectual patterns" with no S/O content, and mentioned some,
but his objection missed the point completely. Mathematics for
instance, most of it is just calculation and no intellectual pattern, Stone
Age people mastered that skill. The formal mathematical and
geometrical "theorems" are all about showing how this and that
relationship is objectively true, not anything changing with the
subjective mood of the craftsman.. Then in the PT letter he admitted
that there was something wrong with the orthodox 4th. level and came
a hair's breadth of the SOL by saying there were no intellectual level
before the Greek thinkers (meaning =SOM) But trust old Pirsig, it
would be too much to admit the SOL and he then launched the new
"symbol manipulation" definition of intellect. and then the equally silly
"non-S/O" Oriental intellect. To complete the confusion he ended the
letter by saying it was just his opinion ... perhaps bull. But you of
course accepted this as som rejection of the SOL which it's NOT. God,
I'm not out to amend the MOQ it is the original version I want to save.
> I assume that Mary was asking about Pirsig's MOQ rather than Bo's
> twist.
OK, I know nothing I say will make any dent in your "panzer"
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/
