Avid, Cntryforce, Jonathan, Platt and Group.
For AVID
First of all I applaud your words (to Walter Balestra) in
another post:
> What worries me is that all of this discussion could have been made without
> Pirsig's theory too. All you are arguing about is Reality vs. Observation
> period. Not about MoQ. MoQ is a different set of Metaphysics and it should
> be built in order to see how it functions. These little building stones are
> formulated experiences of quality, SPQ, static patterns of quality. So please
> if someone here cares to shift from our SOM to MoQ, please do, but it
> requires a shift.
I agree unto hysterics. About the "shift" see my reply to Jonathan.
You said in another post:
> So in the end I forgot to put my answer to what is the next freedom:
> It will be the freedom from ideas theories and beliefs in the
> socialization of cultures, it will be a freedom felt by cultures.
I don't have any misgivings about your summary of the present
"freedom" levels except that it is very difficult to define them in
positive terms. It makes it more terse to say that each level is a
"subduction" of the former level's values. All right, you then go on
to suggest what the next level may be like (above): Very good, let
me add a few points.
The rule of the Q-development is that the lower level presents the
building block of the next, and Pirsig also stresses that any level
starts "..in the service of its parent". That is, indistinguishable
from it (at first). Organic life is of inorganic matter. Societies
are of living members. So far so good, but then how does Intellect
build on society? What are the building blocks here?
Well, that's what LILA is mostly about I guess, and Pirsig has drawn
much hostile fire from his demonstrations that Intellect's
independence from (social) bigotry and subjectivity is not so
complete as science (sience= intellect's epitome) likes to think. It
started as common myths and still carries those deep within in the
same sense as life is dead matter once it's stopped being alive.
As I see it "common myths" are the building blocks for Intellect.
But when it comes to Intellect, what could a possible movement
beyond could use as a stepping stone? Ideas? Ideas-as-such would
mean "thinking" or MIND (of SOM) and that can't be surpassed. No, but
it could be the most general idea there is: the idea of ideas, which
IMO is the subject/object notion. According to the carbon atom
example the building block must have an "ambiguity" that DQ can use,
and Quantum experiments has shown that the S/O dualism has a
weakness deep down.
PS:
A new level will not succeed (completely) in discarding its
parent (Intellect [S/O?]), no more than Life has freed itself from
Matter or Society has of Life or Intellect of Society.
For CNTRYFORCE
You said to me (in a private letter):
> This is the great mystery, "what comes after intellect?" I am
> currently rereading ZMM, but from my previous readings (LILA as
> well) the only time I think Pirsig actually mentions this mystery is
> on page 171 of ZMM, where the narrator speaks of future exploration
> "into realms beyond reason." It's intriguing stuff, but I don't
> think Pirsig mentions this mystery again in either book. And who can
> blame him? He had the mystery of Quality to tackle, and that was
> more than enough for any one man. So I assume he is leaving this
> mystery "what comes after intellect?" for future generations to
> tackle, and he has given us the MoQ as a gift to tackle it with.
That's right. As you know he distinguishes between the levels and
the moral code between them, and beyond Intellect he hints to a code
of art. I completely agree with you about the pontential of Intellect
not being fully explored (that you said in another post). This is all
very speculative, but who can resist? :-)
For JONATHAN:
ZAMM(!) vs LILA is more of a literature debate, we can only state our
positions.
You delivered this (about my warning against using subject/object
arguments against the MOQ).
> No, No and again No. Bodvar, for all your preaching against people
> who, in your opinion, misunderstand the basic principals of the MoQ,
> I am amazed that you can suggest that *discarding* the subject/object
> division is part of it. Pirsig USES (rather than condemns) those terms
> extensively is his presentation of the MoQ. My way of putting it is that
> the MoQ recognises S/O for the invaluable tool it is, then TRANSCENDS
> it by recognising its inherent limitations. A similar relationship exists
> between Newton's laws of mechanics and gravity and Einstein's
> relativity. Einstein recognised that Newton's laws were correct, but
> only within certain limits. Similarly, the MoQ may help us to
> recognise the limits of S/O-type thinking. If S/O is regarded as an
> all encompassing metaphysics, then an argument which follows the S/O
> framework consistently and meticulously must be accepted as the
> truth. The MoQ allows us to recognise and admit the logic and yet
> reject the truth of the argument. That provides the motivation for
> finding a better truth.
Someone must speak FOR the MOQ and not only look for
difficulties. But I do wholly agree with you about ..... the MoQ
recognizes S/O for the invaluable tool it is, then TRANSCENDS it by
recognizing its inherent limitations.....(for me even to the degree
that I want it to be a the Intellectual level itself). But you must
admit that once one theory becomes part of a greater framework, its
basics aren't valid. Exactly as with the Einstein/Newton example that
you so aptly point to, something that leads to the phenomenon that
you can't use them alternatively as if part of the same framework.
You have to go by way of a "transformation" procedure.
And God, a SOM/MOQ equivalent to the "Lorentz Equations" I have yelped
about ever since we started this discussion. Pirsig's own that
Inorganic&Organic=objective and Social&Intellectual=subjective I am
not completely satisfied with. My own SOLAQI is an attempt at the
problem.
For PLATT.
You wrote:
> Now what is happening here? Pirsig is "rationalizing" his switch from
> not defining Quality to defining Quality. As Bo himself asserts, an
> intellectual pattern is subject/object logic. The logical paradox here is
> that Pirsig assumes the validity of s/o logic prior to using s/o logic to
> justify using s/o logic (metaphysics) to describe reality. I believe in
> law that's called, "assuming a fact not yet in evidence." or more
> commonly, "putting the cart before the horse."
What you wrote before this shows that Ph�drus of LILA had grave
doubts about launching his MOQ, but I protested against your
statement that he ..acknowledged the futility of presenting a new
metaphysics".
The above looks devastating and I doubt if my "apology" satiesfiy
your overwhelming logic and legal demands, but a new theory has to
build on its predecessor's assumptions, and If I dare to wield my
idea that Intellect is S/O logic (metapysics) itself, a DQ attempt to
transcend its latest static creation will have to "start in its
service", but ...go on pursuing a purpose of its own.... (LILA
somewhere).
PPS.
Today's (Sunday at my longitude) posts possibly brought in new
inputs but to get something off at all before all universe's riddles
are solved (or complicated unto absurdum) by Roger and David this
will have to do.
Bo
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]
