Ian, DMB, Group. 20 Apr.
Ian: > Nice one Dave, thanks for digging up the references. My same answer was > kinda in my question "IF we limit ..." ie we really shouldn't "limit" - > we should see the evolutionary dynamic value of allowing the > Intellectual level to be more than SOM. (even though it appears simple > and convenient to think of it as SOM) I was hoping Mary (and Bo) might > see this point ? Ian The intellectual level is either SOM or a mental vessel that contains ideas, concepts, modes of thinking with SOM one mode and the MOQ another, and such SOM's MIND. And if mind prevails then the MOQ turns into a somish idealist teaching. There is no compromise between these two positions and MOQ's future depends on all SOM's tentacles being cut. DMB no exeption. Thanking him for "references". It's all Buchanan stuff. DMB: > In the MOQ's hierarchy of levels the thing that puts intellect at the top > and the reason it's considered the most moral level is not just because it > is more evolved but also more dynamic. It is the most open to change and > growth and evolution. If we limit the intellect to one particular > metaphysical framework, we've arbitrarily arrested its development. I > think its more like a phase in the historical development of philosophy > and culture. That's how James describes it, as a persistent problem > through the history of philosophy since Descartes, at least. All levels have been "leading edges" and have in turn spawned new levels. Intellect has now spawned the MOQ and is left as static as static comes. If intellect is seen as "most dynamic" and able of coming up with (what you see as intellectual patterns) new ideas - even a new metaphysics that denounces the MOQ - i.e. abolishes the whole moral level hierarchy - what then? Will this be a high moral pattern? Come to the senses you once had Dave! > Above the social-intellectual code, there is the intellectual-dynamic > code. This code of art is about the immorality of suppressing intellectual > creativity, of being too static with respect to science, philosophy or any > other intellectual activity. (Lila, last two pages of chapter 29) The > formation of a new scientific hypothesis is, in this sense, an act of > artistic creation. And so is a new metaphysics. Again, this morality is > not just about what is most evolved but also what's most dynamic (because > that further serves the ongoing process of evolution). Creativity isn't limited to intellect, the social level (the Al Qeda) came up with the idea of using civil airliners to attack WTC. And for all I know does the biological level constantly comes up with new schemes of survival. And the intellectual level - by way of science - may discover still more about the inorganic level's artistic creativity. New particles the more energy. > And it really does seem that there has been a shift in consciousness in > the last century or so. You know, across the whole of Western culture, not > just in philosophy. But this shift certainly show up in philosophy too. > Even in the material sense, we live in a world that's very different from > our ancestors' world. Constant change has become the norm. Seems like > everything is in motion all the time, not least of all because there are > nearly 7 billion of us now. (We should pick a time and all take a > world-wide-nap.) And so this shows up in process oriented philosophies, > dynamic philosophies about streams and fluxes and evolutionary moralities. Sure, SOM and its spearpoint science has lost its momentum, the once dominant utopian faith in the future has faded and Jeez, there's no lack in "attacks" on the subject/object (mind/matter) dichotomy, but no-one except Pirsig has coined a SOM and pin-pointed its arrival on the scene. This is the enormous difference from James and Dewey and whoever. > Pirsig and James aren't the only ones who've rejected SOM. It's been > coming on for a while and is fairly common. Hegel, Heidegger, Dewey, to > name a few. SOM is criticized in textbooks and in journal articles. > Really, the intellect is not locked into those metaphysical assumptions. Your 4th. level is - as said to Ian - the thinking facility that SOM calls "mind" and from your quasi-moqish position it surely is capable of new metaphysical assumptions, but I still wonder what will happen to the "Quality Assumption" (that resides in this mind-intellect ...no?) if a new meta-assumption lodges on top of it?. 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/md/archives.html
