On 29 Nov 2000, at 20:08, Richard Edgar wrote:
> My understanding is that mind/matter should not pollute the idea as,
> in ZAMM Pirsig defined mind and matter as being CREATED by quality.
> He argued that The inconsisency between mind matter and quality was
> only inconsistent if you viewed things from the subjective/objective
> idea of the world. By placing quality the creator, the problem does
> not arise. I think this is chpt 19 ZAMM,around page 250.
Hi RED and Fellow MOQ-discussers.
Thanks for your well-formulated and well edited inputs. As always
we tend to agree at a deeper plane. No, the mind-matter (SOM)
should not pollute the MOQ, but does so easily. Yes, mind and
matter are Quality's creations and you are right about that pair's
inconsistency. ZAMM however was the first sketch of his new
metaphysics where the first trinity version (Quality-object/subject)
was presented, only in LILA are the two missing links between
object (matter) and subject (mind) introduced (Biology and
Society).
> RED
> Why would intellect want to improve SOCIETY? IMO intellect wants to
> move us towards a purely intellectual plane of existence. How cann it
> do this by perfecting society? Since we are still in the middle (or
> perhaps the start) of this transition, it may APPEAR to be seeking to
> improve society but it seemms unlikely for this to be the case by mere
> definition of the value planes!
We DO agree, I just try to endear myself ;-). Intellect's motive is
exactly as you say. Danila's "improvement of society" is Intellect
merely wanting to intellectualize it. Compare it to the Bio-Inorganic
relationship. To be good (food f.ex) to the advanced biological
organisms inorganic matter has to be "biologized" - plants, grain
meat. Likewise, intellect wants a constantly more "intellectualized"
society, but this is not true social value. THAT is better displayed
in much more primitive settings.
> RED
> Really? Look at the effect of nuclear fission and fussion on the
> inorganic world, is the intellects advancement not compromising the
> values of the protons, electrons, positronss etc.? Are the lower
> levels values really fixed? Doesn't this open up the idea of the
> static frame vs moving picture view of levels??
As I see it nuclear reactions don't "have an effect on the inorganic
world", they ARE inoganic value. However, my saying that the
levels are "fixed" doesn't mean that things don't happen, there is a
constant flux. More energy into an collision experiment brings ever
new particles. Given enough time new life forms may appear (what
may be moving in other worlds?). Social configurations come and
go, and at the intelllect the flux is even greater. But no new natural
laws won't appear and Life - built on an whatever element - is
bound to follow its basic value of consumption and proliferation.
....etc.
> RED
> Perhaps you would like to spin off in this direction? I find your
> contribution extremely valuable and would like to hear what you think.
Thanks RED. Shortly my idea is that Intellect isn't "mind" (of SOM)
rather the (static) value (level) of dividing experience into the
subject/object duality. For your "benefit" I attach an exchange
between Marco Bonarelli and myself (which was too off-topic at the
MF). If Marco spots it he may take up the thread.
You will find an essay on it at:
http://members.tripod.com/~Glove_r/Childintro.htm
(This is his Dan Glover's "Lila's Child" address, but you will find a
SOLAQI link there).
> I have enjoyed our discussions so far and would like them to continue.
Likewise
Bo
.......................................................................................
MARCO
> This leads immediately to the never ending diatribe between Bo and
> me. IMO the SOLAQI (Subject/Object Logic As Q-Intellect) idea fails
> as it considers, just like the IQ tests, only the static side of our
> intellectual potentiality.
BO
I appreciate your will to question my pet idea. After the initial hub-
bub there aren't many who can stand more about it any more.
There was one who agreed - Donny Palmgren - but accepting it
seemed to be the signal for his withdrawal. Richard Budd was on
the verge of seeing its virtue, but dropped out.
A short summary: The SOLAQI says that MOQ's Intellectual level
is the subject-object metaphysics. My reason for launching it is the
similarity between what is described as the emergence of the
subject-object metaphysics in ZAMM and the emergence of the
Intellectual level in LILA. If this is valid it has some repercussions:
One is that the Quality Metaphysics is some some movement
beyond Intellect: a probing 5th. level. This again has the virtue of
relieving the MOQ from the impossible situation of being a pattern
of one of its own levels, but introduces a new strangeness namely
of being a WHOLE level of its own!
OK. I won't plead my case further at this stage, but return to Marco
who raises the objection that:
> In fact, Bo, when you argue that it's impossible to put the MOQ idea
> within the logic as it's impossible for a box to contain itself, you
> are just using logic! So, if you also are inside the box, how can
> you talk about what's outside? This is only apparently a paradox:
> the image of the "box" is valid only (maybe) at the inorganic level.
This looks much like the dilemma that the teacher colleagues put
before Phaedrus: Is your idea logical (objective) or illogical
(subjective)? Two equally unattractive "horns"; One where I simply
by reasoning admit that everything is subordinate to this
logic/illogic metaphysics. The other horn leaves me in company
with all nut-cases of this world.
I won't advance further at this stage. Does Marco accept my
reasoning this far? No rhetorical trickery from my side just an effort
to clarify our positions.
Thanks for reading
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
