Jos: Jos: Just being picky here but I'm not sure I agree that we are searching for understanding beyond experience. We the (semi) enlightened should more properly be striving to "know" experience entirely in isolation from understanding. Really this goes to the heart of the DQ/SQ split where the "understood" is the static pattern that you analyse and churn over and over, as compared to the dynamic experience that is so fleeting.
Mati: I know there is a lot of discussion about DQ as this fleeting and possible "mystic" capacity of reality. My point is that reality is what it is. Yet the moment we try to understand it and explain it beyond the social level, whether it is DQ/SQ or S/O the experience changes and becomes metaphysics. Jos: Not convinced. Wherever there is an organising static pattern that is not itself of biological matter but defines the arrangement of plants, animals, machines etc (anything but humans), it defies the definitions of the levels set down by Pirsig. Clearly the pattern does not "contain DNA" but clearly it lies on top of the purely biological layer of values. Is it social? Not according to Pirsig. I liked a description I heard recently (sorry can't remember who it was, Bo?) where evolution to next levels was best explained by emergence of perpendicular axes rather than increasing complexity. Using this model, we should in my view re-define the levels entirely according to fundamental existential shifts, rather than the rather arbitrary assignation of entities to levels according to their containing particular molecules or their being of species of particular genus in the eyes of our own intellects. Jos: Agreed, if there is no agreed definition of "it" amongst those who apparently support an idea then what is "it" at all? Complementarity requires "unambiguous communication" (SODV), - without an understood structure we are a long way from that. Mati: Perhaps I missing the point is this a definition of the static reality of intellect? Jos: I wouldn't claim to have an alternative "better" definition yet, but I suppose this will be a synthesis of SOL ideas with my own, perhaps you can fill me in on how far apart they are. Ok here goes then, as I see it definitions of an intellectual level dont need to include mention of dynamic elements as these are common to all levels. Mati: I think I agree with you here if you are say that when we are just looking at the static values, those are the only ones that can be defined. Dynamic values are something else and are beyond a real capacity to be defined. Jos: The levels overall are categories of static patterns, so to define/describe one relative to another requires only definition of the static parts. SOL is in this way a complete definition just as much as any of the other levels are (bear in mind my view that they are not properly defined either), I think of it like an equation where both sides of the equals sign are affected by a common multiple factor "x". To understand the relationship of one side to the other, there is no need to examine the properties of "x" as it's common to both sides and nets off. Mati: Please forgive me because basic mathematical processes are a challenging. But if you are saying x=x is an intellectual understanding I would agree. If you suggest that itself is evidence of values that are intellect hmmmm..... I will beg to differ. Jos: Then I drift off... The static patterns of intellect are the patterns of "understanding", they are collections of latched descriptive patterns that are mutually compatible and make no contradiction of one another. (Snip....) Mati: This is a start but I think falls short. Cave man understood if there were clouds there was a likelihood of rain. They understood the sun came up and set. They understood many different patterns of reality. This raises the question how does understanding differ from intellect. I believe the answer is found when the right question is asked. Prior to Aristotle's S/O divide I am of the opinion that if you asked what reality was it based on the social definition of the day, ie thunder came from Zeus. Then we had many of the Greek philosopher begin to question this understanding. And in their own way, I believe, intuitively began to ask the question what is reality. The S/O provided the first metaphysical "mirror" if you will to do that. I take it one step further and suggest that prior to MOQ if it were asked what it reality, any metaphysical answer you provided would be tethered to the S/O divide and I believe gives credence to Bodvar's SOL idea. Jos: Where there is conflict, the overall pattern values choice within the pair and rationality is favoured. We "understand" a particular set of entities where we build a static pattern of that includes them all without value conflict. It is therefore the static "understanding" of the interactions of other patterns, as opposed to (currently termed social) organising patterns of "physical" lower order entities below. Mati: Again rationality at it's taproot I believe we are lead back to the SOM. Jos: MOQ as a system, is by my definition an intellectual pattern, but is able to be termed as such because it has modified its descriptions of the social patterns beneath so that they become compatible within its structure. (Remember I'm only talking about the static parts of the MOQ here) Mati: I am only talking about static patterns as well. And again, as Pirsig letter to Paul point out, intellectual and intellect are two separate things. You are correct that MOQ is intellectual but as a pattern of metaphysics it is completely different from S/O as a metaphysical pattern. I have enjoy the discussion about reflections on MD lately. I have come to the conclusion that prior MOQ the SOM dominated all that was understood in reality in Western Society as clearly indicated by LILA. But LILA did two things, first it isolated SO metaphysics as a limited approach to metaphysically understanding of reality. I didn't remember Pirsig hounding any other forms of metaphysics, he only chose one. Why was that? Perhaps from a metaphysical standpoint there was only one beast that was 2500 year old to slay, and Quality was Pirsig's sword. MOQ give the sword the edge and the rest is history. The second thing it did was to provide an alternative metaphyics separate to SOM, a new mirror as it might be understood. This creates a new basis from which reality is understood. If Bodvar's assertion is correct, that SOL is intellect then MOQ is something completely different, "a budding 5th level" as Bodvar suggests. The problem is that MOQ, as a more powerful form of metaphysics in my estimation, has only been valued but such a limited amount of folks, that it's capacity to change understanding at this point is very limited in the bigger societal picture. Jos: I dont think this is in complete conflict with the SOL interpretation however, it just pushes the choice point further down the chain, I'm saying that intellect is the level of patterns where lower level patterns are slotted together according to "logical" rules. These logical rules approximate to subject/object awareness if the culture upon which the pattern is written already takes that view. Mati: Agreed, again if you look for the metaphysical basis for these rules and how we understand them, you end back at the S/O taproot. Jos: Ah Saturday..... Mati: Yes, Ah Saturday. Take care > > 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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
