John, On Fri, May 9, 2014 at 12:04 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Dan, Robert, > > On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 11:53 PM, Dan Glover <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello Robert, >> >> On Sun, May 4, 2014 at 3:58 AM, Robert Warlov <[email protected]> wrote: >> > The answer is suggested in the book: 'Hitchickers guide to the galaxy'. >> See >> > the commentary that ends in the words: "... How shall we eat? Why do we >> > eat? and where shall we have lunch?" >> > >> > The answer to the question of what evolves from intellect, the next form >> > inhabited by Quality is art itself. >> >> Dan: >> I would say intellect informs art. >> > > > J: I would say intellect evolved through an artform. A fairly rigorous > art, with sharply defined rules. But both art and intellect are best when > they inform each other - ideas that are beautiful and works that are true. > So informs, yes. But it goes both ways and Quality is in the balance.
Dan: I'll have to think about this a little more. It doesn't sound right, somehow, but I can't quite put my finger on exactly why that is. > > > >> >> > >> > Because biology reaches its limited form, it takes a radical step, >> finding >> > "Betterness" in repeating the process the protozoa 'discovered' in >> > subsuming itself to membership in a metazoan society. >> >> Dan: >> I would say that when we talk about the MOQ, social patterns are not >> to be seen as a collection of biological patterns. To do so is to >> create confusion. >> >> > > Jc: I think what you mean is that the pattern which guides the biological > beings, is not biological itself, if you don't mind my rephrasing, I > agree. But a pattern that guides, if it's at war, or in conflict with the > level it is supposed to be guiding, there is a problem. Dan: Well, that is not really what I meant. Robert mentioned protozoa forming a metazoan society so I assumed he meant that as a social pattern. Again, in the MOQ, a collection of biological patterns do not form social patterns. You seem to be saying there are biological patterns that guide biological beings yet they are not biological. Is that right? If so, I'm not sure I follow. > > Rob: > >> >> > Society or community undertakes activities whose driver is "betterness" >> > too. Certain aspects of biological quality are discovered to be >> > antithetical to social quality. >> > > Jc: Antithetical? It seems to me that society values the biological > success of it's members, so in the long run there's very little in > biological patterns which is anti-thetical to social rules. Biological > needs such as shelter and food and procreation, are all provided more amply > by a successful society, than they are with a biological individual alone. > Or we woudn't have banded together in the first place. Dan: Our entire judicial and prison system is set up to restrict certain biological activities (sex, drugs, murder, rape, etc.) which are antithetical to society. The police and army enforce social codes with bullets and handcuffs. To believe we all live in yellow submarines of harmony is disastrous. > > Rob: > > >> Order seems to produce a stronger society. >> > Hence disorder must be mitigated by law. >> >> Dan: >> Social patterns make use of biological patterns the same way >> biological patterns make use of inorganic patterns. >> >> > Jc: Exactly. "make use of" not "compete with". Dan: If someone or something was making use of you, controlling you, dominating you, would you accept that? Or would you oppose it? > > > Rob: > > >> > >> > If it's easy to see how these are related. It's harder to see the same >> > process applied to 'Intellect'. >> > >> > My generation was not seeking to subvert 'Intellect' but to illuminate >> it's >> > excesses - that which threatened 'disorder' or 'Decay'. >> > >> > > > Jc: Any criticism of intellect, is done intellectually because intellect > is the art of criticism! So I don't see how social patterns possibly could > "argue" with intellectual ones. The levels are mostly discrete. So I > think, Rob, the generation of your day, identified with Orwell's Winston > Smith, the individuals trapped in a world of SOM certainty - classical > intellect as highest value. The MoI instead of the MoQ. Dan: "They are discrete. They have very little to do with one another. Although each higher level is built on a lower one it is not an extension of that lower level. Quite the contrary. The higher level can often be seen to be in opposition to the lower level, dominating it, controlling it where possible for its own purposes." [Lila] >John: > And I often wonder, if it's snuck back through the door, with the way the > MoQ has intellect as it's "highest value". I see the levels as holistic > and relational rather than competitive and hierarchical. But I guess that > makes me some kind of heretic so never mind. Dan: Intellect is not the highest value in the MOQ. > > Rob: > > >> > As intellect informs society so Art must inform intellect to midigate >> it's >> > destructive formations. >> >> > Jc: That sounds absolutely right on. Excessive romantic quality calls for > more classic and excessive classic requires an aesthetic intuitive leap out > of the prison. It's an ongoing process of historical intellectual > evolution. Dan: I don't think Lila makes use of the romantic/classic split in the same fashion that ZMM does. > > >> Dan: >> I think this is not quite correct. The moral codes actively oppose one >> another. Intellectual patterns do not seek to inform social patterns, >> rather they oppose them. > > > Jc: > > Dan, is NOT a heretic. :-) Dan: If you mean that I don't seek to overlay my own values upon the MOQ, you're probably right. Rather, I seek to understand the MOQ. > > Dan: > > >> Remember the parties Phaedrus attended and >> how all the intellectuals were rebelling against 'The Man'? >> Similarly, the code of art would not inform intellect so much as it >> would seek to usurp it. I don't see that artists are interested in the >> mundane world. They seek to create something new, not to imitate... >> sort of like the difference between philosophy and philosophology. >> >> > Jc: I'm no longer so convinced that any of those dichotomies are > necessarily opposed, and most especially the last two. Dan: There is the studying of philosophy (philosophology) and there is actively creating it. >John: > Philosophy and philosophology are intertwined throughout time. Philosophy > is always as much in dialogue with its past, as it is in the present. > Understanding how our thoughts became as they are, through the choices made > before us, is fundamental to "knowing thyself". I admit they are slightly > different, but they are both necessary. You can't have one without the > other. Dan: Sure you can. Anyone so inclined can study philosophy. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.... oh... sorry... dozed off there for a minute... is there anything drier than dead white guys holding forth? You see, not everyone can write about it with the skill of, say, a Robert Pirsig. > > > > >> > >> > Atomic bombs are unhealthy for living things and living things are >> valuable. >> >> Dan: >> I think that depends upon the context. > > > > Jc: I think young Bob would have walked out of your classroom, Dan! You > can't really argue or temporize "Atomic bombs are unhealthy for living > things and living things are valuable" Dan: Hey, if young Bob can find my classroom he's more than welcome to walk out of it. I just hope the door doesn't hit him where the good lord split him. Nothing is inherently evil just as nothing is inherently good. You can choke to death on a saltine but they make a hell of a sardine sandwich. > > Dan tries: > > >> Atomic bombs might conceivably >> be used to either destroy or steer away an asteroid threatening the >> earth. In that case, they would be valuable for living things. >> >> > Jc sheepish: Ok, I guess that's a point. I was thinking "for" in the > context of earthly use. If you're going to take them to outerspace, you > might be right. Dan: :-) > > > Rob: > >> >> > If Quality preceeds experience, there can be no experience of Quality and >> > if Quality is the arbiter of experience, there is no sensible experience >> > without it. >> >> > Jc: If my mother gave birth to me, can I still experience my mother? > There's no being born, without being born. > > > >> Dan: >> Again, I would say it depends on which context you are using the term >> 'quality' here. In the MOQ, Quality and experience are synonymous. >> >> Thank you, >> >> Dan >> >> > > No, thank YOU, Dan. Well said. Thanks, John. Dan http://www.danglover.com 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
