Hi Dave T. 12 Aug. u wrote:
> I find it interesting that only the two of you failed to take a face > value that I did indeed make an error and send a junk draft file I > always keep in my e-mail folder to put bits and pieces of stuff in. > Also interesting is one says, "come back", the other, stay gone. > Though it's evident from both of your responses to "junk" and in other > messages that either of you credit my criticism with much value for > either your work or Pirsig's. DMB sums it up quite nicely. I used half my resources to unravel only this paragraph ;-) > While biology is dependent on both inorganic and "organic" chemistry, > not all "organic" chemistry requires DNA as this quote and the level > diagrams fails to make clear. Early scientists made the same mistake > in thinking all organic chemistry was predicated on some "life force." > So long as the part "organic chemistry" prior to biology is understood > to be part of the "inorganic" level the two bottom levels are > workable. Pirsig went into the inorganic-biological transition at great length appointing the element carbon as life's building block (hardly great news) but gave us no clues what he saw as "carbons" for the bio-socio and socio-intellectual transitions. IMO he should have dropped ALL such pseudo-scientific stuff, the MOQ is is NOT an "expansion of existing knowledge" as some like to think, no Q-level really corresponds to the scientific categories, but leaves the scientific "objective" perspective completely for the moral perspective and the new-coined moral levels. > However there is not any dispute that sometime, somewhere, there was a > transcendent leap in the quality of human animal's brain to process, > store, and use information in ways that no other animals can. It > doesn't really make a whole lot of difference whether it was > biological or social event or some combination of hundreds of each the > leap happened. And the best word candidate for that leap is > "intellect". And by RMP law you can't have an emergent quality without > an emergent level. Agree, the human neocortex brain was clearly the biological "carbon" for the social development. The tendency to see "societies" with animals and even lower down is a failure to understand the MORALS of Q-society which is not merely banding together - animals do a lot of that for survival reasons - but that of rising above biology's "eat and proliferate" morality and it's here "traditional" morals enters existence. Moreover the biological-social transition is where matter changes into mind as many seem to believe (based on the orthodox theory how the MOQ subsumes SOM) > Now I'm going to take a "Great Leap" and guess one of the qualities of > thought that was essential (maybe even the initial quality) for that > "Great Leap Forward". The "Great Leap forward" is the social-intellectual transition ... no? > Visual abductive reasoning. Yep circle right back to one of the fathers > of pragmatism dear old Charles Saunders Peirce. Do your research and > let me know. OK, Peirce is the father of the "Semiosis Metaphysics" which compares to the MOQ at its early "trinity" stage, it skips the S/O dualism and introduces a "triade reality" of a SIGN (=Quality) an INTERPRETER (=subject) and an OBJECT (=ditto). But as we know that stage did not last long for Pirsig before he shifted to the (what was to become) Dynamic/Static Quality. That's my research this far. 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
