Hi Magnus
On 26 Mar. you said:
> Yes, I now see the root of our disagreement (again...).
Thanks for making some effort to understand.
> When you discuss the levels, you do it from a "frame of mind". I.e.
> you only see biological value for what it means to someone acting upon
> them, and when you start talking about social value, you only regard
> it from within the person thinking about them, also with the
> intellectual level. And if you do it that way, the S/O "frame of mind"
> naturally becomes the 4th level.
I'm not sure if your diagnosis holds, but my point is that the 4th
level's "signature" is the S/O distinction, that's correct, everything
point to it. Want to hear?
> This is why you can't understand why Pirsig says that the MoQ is an
> intellectual pattern. In your view, saying that is to demote the MoQ
> (from some kind of meta-level which doesn't fit very well into the
> MoQ) to the 4th (your S/O) level, but in my view (which in this case
> is also Pirsig's view) the MoQ is simply a set of ideas (i.e. a set of
> intellectual patterns) that may or may not affect people reading about
> it.
OK, well put, but as one who deals with logic you ought to know
that a sub-set can't contain the whole set, Pirsig goes to great
lengths to point out this "container logic"
This problem of trying to describe value in terms of
substance has been the problem of a smaller container
trying to contain a larger one. Value is not a subspecies
of substance. Substance is a subspecies of value. When
you reverse the containment process and define
substance in terms of value the mystery disappears:
substance is a "stable pattern of inorganic values." The
problem then disappears. The world of objects and the
world of values is unified. (LILA page 68)
Translated: The MOQ is not a subset of the intellectual level, the
intellectual level is a subset of the MOQ. This is so obvious that I
can't fathom why Pirsig made this goof. And why you back it is
even more mysterious.
> That MoQ meta-level you talk about, that's the metaphysics we're
> discussing! And from within that "frame of mind" we can discuss the
> world around us. Doing that does *not* put us in some kind of higher
> level of being. We still use the same language and try to shove a
> handfull of intellectual patterns in each-other's faces now and then
> to see if the resulting intellectual quality event takes us any
> closer, or perhaps farther away.
When a grown up talk to a child it is supposed to see things from
a higher perspective - one that the child can't reach however
bright - and even if this "discussion" uses a common language it
does not bridge the gap. Likewise one at the intellectual level
can't reach one at the social level. If one has decided that God
has created the world any reasoning from Darwin' theory is in
wain. Thus my lecturing from the MOQ level is wasted on you at
the intellectual level. ;-)
> If you don't see this difference of our views, or if you insist on
> continuing on using your "frame of mind" view, I'm afraid we're not
> coming any closer. I'm more interested in the lower levels, and the
> physical/cosmological ramifications of the MoQ, but your view only
> works for the upper levels and doesn't say much at all about the lower
> levels. That's probably why you can't see the benefits of my view
> about those lower levels.
The MOQ only concern itself with the metaphysics and here the
ramifications are enough for several lifetimes. Look, the
Reality=Quality postulate sets the Q levels apart from their SOM
namesakes. The "static inorganic patterns" has nothing to do with
what physics and cosmology deals with, physics is science and
as such an intellectual pattern and intellect MUST treat reality as
a subject observing objective matter. Leave science to the
intellect, it knows best. To impose Q-versions of the scientific
discipline is like a Field Marshal meddling with the business of his
generals. We are supposed to see the great metaphysical
overview, at least that is what gives me the kick.
> For example, when you talk about an animal, you only think it's in its
> biological "frame of mind", always. And that may be true for the most
> part. BUT! your view doesn't say anything about *why* there exist
> animals with more than one cell, neither why there exist different
> types of animals at all. From a biological point of view, a cell is
> all that is needed to eat and reproduce. Sure, DQ once in a while
> steps in and puts two cells together. But if only biological urges
> rule those two joined cells, what keeps them from reproducing
> separately? Because that's what biological creatures do, right? In
> your view, you simply treat this new 2-cell animal as a new animal,
> but there's a BIG hole in that reasoning. WHY DO THEY STICK TOGETHER?
I think we agree, or that you ought to agree with me. It's exactly
what I say above about leaving science - in this case biology - to
intellect, it knows best. A Q-biology will just mess it up. MOQ's
great achievement is the biological LEVEL and its relationship
with the other LEVELS.
> You see, when you put it this way, you must see the obvious
> correlation between a bunch of cells and a bunch of animals or humans.
I do see the correlation between SCIENTIFIC biology and ditto
sociology.
> If you don't, please explain how your view does it. If you can't
> explain it with your view, mine is simply better at explaining our
> reality and I'll continue using it.
The whole post has been my explanation.
Bo
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/
