ROGER REPLIES TO GLOVE AND MARK AND
DAVID ON COLLECTIONS OF PATTERNS
ACROSS LEVELS
Hi David B., Mark and Glove;
David Wrote:
>ROGER recently said, "It is usually a HUGE mistake to try to equate any
>THING or behavior to a level" I disagree 100%. I think Pirsig gives us
>the levels (and codes) for a reason. Lila HB page 100 "The MOQ provides
>a better set of coordinates with which to interpet the world than does
>SOM because it is more inclusive." I repeat, "with which to interpet
>the world". That's the whole idea. That's what makes it pragmatically
>useful. (Redundancy for dramatic effect)
Roger:
Interestingly enough, I agree with what you write after the 100% quote. I
guess I did not write clearly enough. I was not negating the benefit of using
these coordinates for interpreting the world, I was cautioning against
simplistic categorization of a thing or action into a SINGLE level. I have
seen members stumble on this for months....and some never seem to get it.
(BTW I am not hinting that this aplies to any of the members addressed in
this post) The complication is that most things and even behaviors tend to
be COLLECTIONS OF PATTERNS.
This became abundantly clear during our Morality month last Fall. A war has
social, biological and intellectual implications...... A woman is made of
carbon, is biological, is a teacher and is a source of ideas...... A library
is an inorganic building for storing social and intellectual knowledge for
living beings...... adultery has biological and social ramifications. Tieing
your shoes is related to inorganic string to keep your biological toes warm
and protected in socially defined styles of shoes..... Pirsig himself gives
numerous examples of multi level things throughout Lila.... Convicts, the
mind, "I" , Lila......
Failure to catch the nuances of collections of patterns across levels can
lead to some bizarre conclusions. However, it definitely complicates the
moral compass of the MOQ. That is OK, the world is pretty complex too, so an
overly simple set of coordinates might have limited real usefulness.
David:
>ROGER also says, "Even a subatomic particle is as much an intellectal
>pattern as an inorganic one." I think this claim is confusing and not
>true. We have intellectual patterns about subatomic structures in both
>SOM and MOQ terms, but that ought not be confused with actual "thing" we
>refer to. Such thinking would even make the patient/germ debate too
>difficult to manage.
Roger:
It is confusing, but it is true too. It was kind of a trick example
actually. Glove explained it well, but independent quantum particles are an
intellectual construct. Technically, even in SOM there is no independent
subatomic thing. However, Pirsig makes it quite clear that even the inorganic
realm of independent subjects and objects and gravity and time is first an
intellectual construct. Do you really think that the world "in your head" and
in our words is the REAL world? Now that would be solipsism.
Now, I must admit that we can often simplify this and just agree to drop the
"intellectual pattern" preface to other "things", which allows us to classify
many inorganic objects as single level patterns, but above this level, the
patterns complexify real quick.
Mark wrote:
>"But now atoms and molecules are just one of four levels of static patterns
>of quality and there is no intellectual requirement that any level dominate
>the other three."
>which not only directly supports David, but also implies that while things
>can be acting in many levels at one time, not all things must act in every
>level all of the time.
Roger:
I would agree that not all things act in all levels at the same time. My
initial post was ambiguous, but allow me to clarify that this was never my
position.
Mark:
>I also disagree with the quote attributed to Roger. It's clear in the
>quote above that Pirsig does not believe that subatomic particles have
>intellectual patterns. I agree that it is neither necessary nor practical
>in terms of the MoQ for that to be true.
Roger:
I never meant that subatomic particles HAVE intellectual patterns. They ARE
intellectual patterns. Pirsig BTW is quite clear on this.
Thanks for the discussion all!
Rog
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
