Magnus.
22 Feb. u wrote:
Bo before:
> > First of all LILA is no intellectual pattern, but a MOQ pattern that
> > has a sub-set (a static level) called "intellect". The fact that it
> > is a book with signs on paper does not make it any more
> > "intellectual" than Egyptian hieroglyphs ... or the "Old books of
> > the Bible" that Pirsig declared without intellectual content.
> You're half right, but have always missed the point about "things"
> being made of different levels at the same time. The signs on the paper
> are made of ink, and the same book in electronic form is made of ones
> and zeros, or transistors in different states if you will. That's not
> what we mean by something like "have you read Lila"?
OK, point taken, perhaps ".. the fact that it is a book" had been
enough.
> When we ask that, we don't care whether it was read in a book, in
> English, Norwegian, Swedish or if it was read on a computer. What we
> mean is whether we have read the content, i.e. the intellectual
> patterns stored/represented by those ink signs or transistor states.
> The content is the intellectual patterns.
But this indicates language as intellect's hallmark and you can't
possibly mean that (after correctly pointing to language's social origin)
To return to Pirsig's on the Old Testament.
"But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies
the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is
conspicuously absent. The world is ruled by Gods who follow
social and biological patterns and nothing else."
It's plain that it's SOM - the objective attitude that declares all
references to the supernatural to be delusion - which is missing. Thus
there are books that can contain social value and there are books that
go beyond social value - i.e. contain intellectual value - and there can
be books that go beyond beyond intellect.
> And BTW, I have no idea what you mean by 'a MOQ pattern that has a
> sub-set (a static level) called "intellect"'?
My opinion ought to be known by now. LILA is the second (in a coming
avalanche) of books that will go beyond SOM. From the above (Pirsig
letter) it's clear that SOM=Intellect, thus the highest static value
becomes the S/O distinction.
> How does that fit into the MoQ with a first division of DQ/SQ and then
> SQ into the static levels? It seems you have added another division
> somewhere.
How come? The MOQ is the DQ/SQ metaphysical arrangement, the
fact that intellect's has the S/O distinction as its static value poses no
problem ... if that is your objection?
> The meaning of bared fangs and the meaning of sulfuric acid are two
> very different things. Bared fangs has a meaning, it's pure
> communication. On the other hand, sulfuric acid destroys the amoeba's
> inorganic patterns, it doesn't stand a chance to do one thing or the
> other when it hits. An animal seeing bared fangs can fight or flee.
It was your assertion that (social) language was the basic patter-
mapping that provoked me to give these as examples of biological
pattern-mapping. Yes, all levels are pattern-mapping.
> Lila is no different than any other book from an intellectual
> perspective. And there is no MoQ level above the intellectual that you
> somehow need to acquire to understand the MoQ
Really? Is the said Old Testament - or the Koran - intellectual
documents? And if the MOQ is intellectual, what is NOT intellectual?
You are up to your neck in SOM from where the MOQ is an
Aristotelian type metaphysics, i.e. a theory about reality. And you are
not alone, according to the (at times) silly Pirsig reality is supposed to
be Quality, but where does anyone say that reality is NOT quality? Or
is something at all except some enigmatic that we make theories
about? There is just SOM that says that qualities are subjective, so it's
SOM which must be brought under MOQ's control and that can only
happen if it is relegated the role of the intellectual level. And so much
of LILA indicates just that.
And that's all for today
Bodvar
>
> >>> This is of particular concern with the intellectual level. You
> >>> said Lila, the text, is an intellectual pattern. How do you know?
> >>> How is it we make this distinction? How do we you know that
> >>> distinction is correct?
> >
> > Had D.T. asked this from the MOQ premises it would have been most
> > apt. As mentioned, LILA is no more intellectual than the hieroglyhs
> > were, but is as inscrutable to intellect-dwellers as the hieroglyphs
> > were before the Rosetta Stone.
> >
> >> Not really sure how to answer that without reciting large parts of
> >> the essay. I guess my way of knowing is that I have, at least to
> >> myself, made a clear distinction of what is what and how everything
> >> sticks together. I spent a few years trying to find holes in that
> >> system, resulting in a slightly revised system and the first essay.
> >> I still try to find holes in my system, but as time goes by and I
> >> still can't find any, I tend to increase my sense of knowing these
> >> things you ask.
> >
> > I just found a hole bigger than the solar system.
>
> Would you mind pointing with a bigger pen? I missed it completely.
>
> >> From the essay:
> >>>> ³Intellectual patterns use the language provided by the society
> >>>> to simulate another layer of static quality. By doing this,
> >>>> intellectual patterns can build models of its own reality and
> >>>> manipulate the models without manipulating the reality.
> >>>> Intellectual Quality Events are associations, inspiration etc.²
> >>>> [Undressing on MoQ site]
> >
> > Don't you think social level cultures - the Egyptians or Babylonians
> > f.ex. - could build models, carry out calculations, or simply think
> > in beforehand how things could be made? Only they had not achieved
> > the intellectual lingo about "manipulating models different from
> > Reality" They surely had as many association and inspirations as
> > ourselves.
>
> Of course they could, which of course means they had just as much
> insight into the intellectual level as we do.
>
> Magnus
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>
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/
