Mary, I wish I could paint what you've writen. I will try harder because it is worth repeating.
Marsha On Jun 24, 2010, at 8:29 AM, Mary wrote: Hi Bo and all, > > The 'metaphysics' of the MoQ is Pirsig's carefully constructed intellectual > explanation of a bigger insight he had of something which cannot be fully > expressed intellectually. In the same way you could say the canons of > Catholicism, for instance, are not God himself, but do represent a method of > understanding God, the MoQ is not Quality itself, but a method of beginning > to climb up out of SOM and seek a deeper understanding of Quality. > > The hierarchy of Levels, the concept of 'patterns of value', and the idea > that Quality 'has' things and not the other way around, are guides or > 'hints' only, pointing to a shift in how Pirsig would like us to see > reality. They represent a new belief system, and in my view, a new > fundamental belief system is, by definition, equivalent to a new Level. I > am not suggesting that every new religion, for instance, is a new Level. > These are belief systems with a small 'b', because if you examine any of > them no matter how different their surface appearance, they are all > underpinned by a core set of like underpinnings. The varieties of Social > Level religion can be likened to differing scientific theories for observed > experience. You can choose to back one theory over another, but everyone on > all sides still has to account for the observation as 'truth'. > > The Pirsig Levels are SOM representations of the indefinable insight Pirsig > had early on. They are his intellectual construction after the fact > designed to give meaning and intellectually satisfying explanations to what > he experienced. I think the degree to which one grasps this is the degree > to which one will be able to transcend the SOM by which the MoQ is > described. Taking the explanations too literally results in the > 'SOMization' of the MoQ, reducing it to just another Intellectual, > subject-object based method of understanding. It's a good start, but is not > the whole thing. An example of this might happen the first time you are > exposed to the MoQ. At first reading, one might jump to the conclusion that > the Levels are buckets where you can put like things. Rocks go in the > inorganic, all thinking goes in the intellectual, etc.; but, a closer > reading reveals that this is not what Pirsig is saying, and thought the > bucket analogy seems to be a complete logical fit with Pirsig's > explanations, to see them that way is to miss much of Pirsig's insight. > > Thanks for your comments Bo. > > Mary > > Hi again Mary >> >> You had uttered this (about the MOQ) in part 1. >> >> .... it was the new metaphysical twist that said the subject-object >>> world we perceive really IS all there is and it is good - and not >>> just >> good, but the only good. And if any group before had ever said, "no >>> it's not" (which Pirsig says there were and they did), then they were >>> proclaimed wrong by this new Intellectual "freedom" which shifted the >>> world under our feet and declared boldly otherwise >>> >> And I had declared my unconditional agreement something I'm not >> going to withdraw, only that declaring the world - or reality - "to be >> something" is barren, there must be a contrast of some kind, thus not >> until the DQ/SQ did the Quality Reality become manifest. >> >> Lest you get the wrong idea, I'm not saying anything about my own >>> value judgments here, I'm just pointing out that at the time, the >>> advent of the Intellectual Level had to have been a refreshing >>> relief for all those closet religious doubters who were daily >>> persecuted, the early scientists who wanted to learn how things >>> "really" worked as opposed to how God said they worked, and all >>> those oppressed by the tyranny of inherited rather than earned >>> privilege, caste, or rank. >>> >> General agreement. As I said the Western intellectual level rose out of >> the social level in the form of the Greek Mythology and we don't hear >> about Myth fundamentalist "assassins" out to kill the infidel >> philosophers, it looks like a walk-over, the multi-theism was easily >> overcome, but over "at the other shore that form was replaced by the >> mono-theism and THAT is to social value what SOM is to intellectual >> value: absolutely petrified. Now after the Medieval Times which was a >> kind of hibernating for intellect it returned with the Renaissance and >> then - in Europe - met with social value anew but now in the form of >> monotheism religion and then scenery that you describe above took >> place. However Christendom was intellect-influenced it was that that >> made it split with Judaism and it "grudgingly" allowed intellect to >> take >> over by and by. Not so with is cousins Judaism and particularly Islam >> but that is another matter. >> >> The Intellectual Level sought to erase the inherent fallacies of the >>> Social, and it worked pretty well. For the first time it gave us a >>> metaphysical basis from which to combat the insidious malaise of >>> Social >> celebrity, unfairness, illogical "magical" thinking and all sorts of >>> other Social stuff like that all in one fell swoop. >>> >> Yes, yes, spot on, still the social - like intellect - has thousands >> facets. >> not only the religious. According to LILA the West wasn't won until >> after WW1, it was the gruesome aspects of social virtues like >> obedience, heroism, valor faced with modern weaponry that turned the >> tables. But of course there were much references to religion. "Gott mit >> Uns" blessing the weapons ...etc. >> >> But it had its downside. If you are daily suffering under the yoke >>> of social repression that prevents you from expressing freedom of >>> thought or freedom of action, or says that your social status is >>> determined by some arbitrary decision made by people who are >>> arbitrarily powerful, then the tenants of the Intellectual Level are >>> a godsend. You now have a coherent belief system upon which to base >>> opposing arguments. But this belief system proved to be an >>> incomplete solution and turned out to result in a new and different >>> mental prison all its own. I shall explain. >>> >> If you no longer believe that God has moral authority then that >>> authority falls to man. Maybe that's a good thing, but if it >>> defaults to man, then moral authority is just whatever you say it >>> is, and if you combine that with another Intellectual tenant that >>> says we are all created equal, then there is no moral authority at >>> all. My morals are just as valid as yours. >>> >> Agree, but one remark. You know intellect began with search for >> principle that transcended the mythological gods' reality, so >> principles >> has followed intellect: Principles of human rights, worth and freedom, >> and the all these are meant to prevent the vicissitudes of "man", so >> intellect 's objectivity is always opposed to "whatever you say". And >> yet >> as you say intellect could not objectify its principles, they remained >> subjective. It was in a jam has always been. >> >> If you no longer believe the world was created by an omniscient >>> creator for your benefit, and you fail to replace that belief with >>> something else, the world _must_ be nothing more than the subjects >>> and objects you see. This approach has benefits. You can do >>> science and expect predictable, non-arbitrary results, but it also >>> means you've raised the value of the objective world to the >>> equivalent of 'the good'. If there is nothing else, yet you are >>> aware of a sense of 'betterness', then 'the good' must be a quality >>> that inheres in the object. The object has quality. Quality does >>> not have the object, and as we all know, it's all down-hill from >>> there. >>> >> You really "take off here, but it sounds right, intellectual humankind >> had to rely on science to guide "his" ways, but that "god" does not >> offer much of moral guidance not compared with what the social GOD >> could, no salvation or afterlife, yet the existentialism philosophers >> insisted that we had to reconcile ourselves with it . >> >> Both the Social and the Intellectual Level, then, can be seen as >>> differing metaphysical belief systems, differing 'patterns of >>> value', and I would submit that beginning with the Social Level, >>> differing metaphysical world-views of this sort were and will >>> continue to be the engine driving the formation of themselves and >>> any new levels which may be to come. >>> >> Now THIs is something I have forwarded many times - the levels as >> metaphysics - it makes lot of sense, the inorganic and biological can >> with SOMish criteria difficulty be called so because of metaphysics are >> supposed to be mindish constituents, but in a MOQ context however >> .... >> >> That Bo insists the MoQ, while 'of' or spawned by Intellectual >>> Values is not one itself, is because he is following Pirsig's model. >>> It says this. A new level germinates within its parent, but as it >>> matures it can be seen in hindsight to come into conflict with the >>> values of its parent; and when it does, and when it has achieved >>> sufficient static latching to persist, it can be seen to constitute >>> its own separate set of patterns of value. As Pirsig says, these >>> are always in conflict with the values of the parent, seek to oppose >>> and dominate it, yet clearly depend upon it for existence. In this >>> context, The MoQ can clearly be seen as such in its relationship >>> with the Intellectual. >>> >> This is excellent Mary, knowing that the true MOQ is understood >> (something you show by this about its level-like relationship with >> intellect: Out of intellect in intellect's SOM role, becoming the >> reality >> that has intellect as its subset) gives me great peace of mind. >> >> Hugs >> >> Bodvar. >> >> >> PS >> NB =Nota Bene (Latin I believe) "notice well". Maybe not used in >> English >> >> >> >> >> >> 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
