Hi Mary, Well said and exactly right.
Thanks for posting. A "keeper." Platt On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Mary <[email protected]> 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 > > 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 > 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
