Todd, Marco & Group.
For Todd who wrote:
> I fully agree with all of your replies. I have followed your SOLAQI
> idea since I have been a member of this focus group. You are on solid
> ground with your S/O-logic. Your doctrine is perhaps the truest to
> the 'whole' MOQ manifesto. I think you have helped clarify the
> levels to many and should probably be considered a top MOQ disciple.
> (Lets not make you a martyr just yet ; ) My problem is that you are
> always ready to " find another pretext to zoom in on your pet
> theory: "the mind fallacy." You are just a little to indoctrinated
> for my style. Not that that is bad, its just, well …."Static".
> (Not every month is for ringing the SOLAQI bell)
I should have sat back and thought this over before throwing myself
at the keyboard (as I once accused Magnus of doing), but I must
thank you for your most generous and balanced message, if not
mocking me, the first ever to acknowledge my humble effort.
I am a little monomaniac about the SOLAQI idea, I know, but so
much turns around the common society-intellect centre of gravity. If
the latter level is as loosely defined as I feel Pirsig left it, it
becomes a bit ridiculous, and I so badly want the MOQ to be able
to make it out of these protected waters.
The martyr bit went home with me, I am still chuckling :-).
You further wrote:
> (If we keep the discussion to a pure and true MOQ view, then my
> question becomes this: "What *actually* happens [or happened]
> between the inorganic and the biological level?)
You mean how life came to emerge from matter, or the ongoing
relationship between those two levels? If we take the first option
and the assertion that any level started �in the service of� its parent
(an advanced pattern of the previous level) then life was once
complicated matter, but what matter-preserving function did
complicated matter have compared to simple matter? We have
discussed all other levels� infancy and found such reasons, but the
inorganic has been an embarrassment. But �matter�? When we
utter the word SOM�s substance as opposed to mind comes to the
fore. MOQ�s inorganic pattern is something different.
We have agreed that existence is perception of all quality levels,
but when it comes to the inorganic one it�s as if there�s substance
over there - not part of (our) experience. I think a SOL-like idea
defining the inorganic level in a more moqish way is required, but
this is way off this month�s Giant limits. I will suggest it for a June
topic.
You also wrote:
> I must admit that I also seem to stroke my pet theory in most of my
> posts. I just usually don't have as much time to converse in this
> forum as yourself. If you haven't noticed my pet theory is that: "The
> creative force is Opposition!" My idea is not as crystallized as
> SOLAQI yet. When or if that happens, I probably will also be so
> excited about it as to never shut up about it either.
Couldn�t your �creative force is Opposition� be integrated into the
MOQ as dynamic value�s constant opposition to stable value? A
static level growing more rigid creating stronger tension that finally
will results in a �mutiny�.
..................................................................................................
For Marco who wrote: (I just have to indicate the beginnings of the
various paragraphs because a most embarrassing thing happened
when trying to empty my INBOX :-(
> Horse wrote:
>> A beehive...etc
I think it was Magnus who wrote it :-).
> The blocks are organized...etc
Yes, it�s the SODV paper, but if you can stand a little bit more
SOL-talk I feel that this description of intellect is Pirsig�s
unfinished symphony. Theology an intellectual pattern? Theology is
carried on within church circles which is a SOCIAL institution.
Likewise much theorizing was - and is - done to back the SOCIAL
patterned fascism and nazism ideologies. This sounds more like
the thinking intellect. If freedom from its parent level is a
characteristic of any level, and the value of society is �our cause
right or wrong� (all �facts� have to yield to it), then intellectual value
is to find what�s true regardless of �society� and it does so by
presenting itself as a disembodied mind surveying reality out there.
> Pirsig puts the Inorganic and Biological levels ....etc
The idea behind placing the levels in these two general frames is to
show how SOM is contained by the MOQ and is useful - but only
to a degree. The inorganic level (as substance) is �concrete� in a
SOM sense, so is life as made up of matter. Life as life is an
(objective) phenomenon, but so are societies and so is intellect, so
I feel this is easy prey for MOQ hunters. Only if intellect is viewed
as subject-objectivity itself is SOM solidly tucked inside the MOQ.
The highest value level, yet subordinate to Dynamic Quality.
> Objectivity is useful in the objective frame....etc
For whom? Inorganic value care nothing about "objectivity". Biology
even less. I mean when you SENSE no objectivizing takes place.
And when focussed in social value (EMOTION) one won't hear
about any subjectivity, it's salvation or damnation! No, only at
intellect is REASON - objectivity/subjectivity - a focus.
> The Metaphysics of Quality says there can be many competing
> truths....etc
Many truths in the sense that for example the present Big Bang
cosmology has replaced the Steady State, and Lamarc�s
hereditary theory has been replaced by Mendel�s, but intellect
doesn�t really regard any theory as truth, except itself AS A
METHOD; the search for what is independent of opinion.
Intellectual value decides among intellectual patterns; the slightest
trace of subjectivity (cheating & corruption) and a theory is dead,
but DYNAMIC value drives the overall static formation.
I agree to whatever definition of anthills is forwarded. This is a
�Saarland� between matter and life: seen from France it�s French,
from Germany it�s German. (Look to David B�s last message). And
yes, you are right, only humankind has gone beyond biology
....and firmly shut the window of opportunity behind it .....on the
earth!
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
