Mary and Joe Joe before: > > Imho the hierarchy of the levels of evolution needs a little tweaking. > > Right now there is no coherent statement of how an individual level in > > evolution materializes.
Bo butts in: An individual level? Is that supposed to mean any level? Mary (below) is right about Pirsig not offering any mechanism, and he only dwells on carbon as the inorganic pattern that became DQ's vehicle to life. However as SOM became the 4th level. we have a pretty good description of the Social - Intellectual transition . What the social "carbon" was ..? Language was once a strong candidate, but I've come to doubt it. [Mary Replies] to Joe > You're right. Pirsig never explains the mechanism that causes the leap > from one level to another, but I don't think it matters. The hierarchy of > the levels is only visible in retrospect. For instance, if there were a > new 5th level in the works I don't think we would see it coming. About any 5th. level waiting in the future it's impossible, after the MOQ rose out of what we in retrospect see as the static hierarchy - and necessarily from its topmost level - the Quality Universe is closed .. or limitless, how you see this does not matter, but no static level can establish itself on top of intellect. Intellect in the Q sense that is, not the mind-intellect where ideas reside. > The levels are only useful as a taxonomic construct. A way to group SPOVs > that have a like "purpose of their own". As we know, there are clusters > of SPOVs that serve biology, society, and intellectual level pursuits. As > Pirgig says, they only break free from the previous level when they evolve > to the point where they no longer serve to support that previous level. I > don't know if that would always be obvious at the time. "Only"? It sounds as if there were static patterns of value like puzzle pieces laying around and and only with the MOQ did we - humans - begin to give "name to all the animals". With the MOQ the reality crystallize into the Quality System, what was matter in SOM became Inorganic patterns of value ... and so on. But otherwise total agreement. Joe: > > Intellectual and social levels are also problematic in that I have > > great difficulty trying to isolate a social level that is prior to an > > intellectual level. Bo butting in. As said everything changed with MOQ's inside-out turn, but SOM's matter bears some superficial likeness to "inorganic patterns of value", as does life to "biological patterns of value", but with the social level the MOQ begins to take leave of SOM, not everything that SOM calls societies are Q-social value, yet the 3rd. level is easily delineated, there are even whole cultures focussed on the 3rd level today. Let me just finish this by saying that the break with SOM is total when it comes to the 4th, level , this has nothing whatsoever to do with mind. [Mary Replies] to Joe's > What works for me is SOM as the intellectual level. Not SOL, mind you, > because that has existed since the biological. This is quite a mystery. SOM as the intellectual level works for you! Good! Fantastic!! Absolute fabulous!!! "but not SOL"??? "SOL" is just the acronym for the interpretation of the MOQ that says that SOM is the intellectual level! There is no SOL in the MOQ, only the SOL interpretation OF the MOQ > What I'm referring to is the objectification of reality, the scientific > method, for example. The scientific method does not serve a Social > Level function. To say that I agree in an understatement. > I'm starting to think, too, that you can see how this > is a direct outgrowth of the elevation of the individual found in > monotheism. About monotheism however I have reservation, but let it rest. > I find this useful because it fits the "rules" Pirsig established for the > levels. SOM does not have a mandate to serve social level purposes. At > times it MAY support the social, but it's just as likely that it won't. > For me, you have to reject the notion that the Intellectual Level is > simply "thinking" or "higher intelligence". Those things had to already > exist for the Social Level to develop. This is just good! > Despite reading your post slowly and carefully, I am unable to grasp your > meaning about the relationship of the musical octave to the MoQ, but if > you'd be willing to try again, so will I. :) Yes, Joe can be enigmatic, at times one believes he is a "Türing Test" machine . 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/
