Hi MOF
Here I am still "on the road" but unable to keep away from the
forum totally. I will just use an early message from Bobby Dillon as
a focus to say something about this month's (mile long :-) topic. He
wrote:
> The central question seems to be : How can we distinguish one level
> from another ? that is -what makes one level higher than the other?
> Evolution ? Evolution of what ? Of Intellegence or of Morals ? Clearly
> intellegence has evolved over the millions of years, and the 4
> Q-levels are definitely representative of higher and higher levels of
> intellegence, but can we say higher and higher morals ??? For
> intellectual level to be valid and higher than the social level it
> needs to show the highest moral, not just intellegence.
Before the static levels are addressed the initial MOQ claim must
be understood. All right, we are supposed to know that, but I have
the feeling that it isn't quite solved when you ask what kind of
evolution the levels represent. The very core of the MOQ is that
existence is this moral build-up or sedimentation, or however one
chooses to visualize the development.
But the word "morals" is perhaps the very problem, loaded to the
plimsoll mark with ethical connotations. It's terrible difficult to free
oneself from those limitations and see the VALUE context it gets
in the Quality Metaphysics. You demand from Intellect to "show
the highest moral" and it does indeed, BUT ONLY AT THIS LEVEL
DOES IT GET THE HUMAN-ETHICS FLAVOUR that I think you
mean when talking about morals.
> Let me make an absurd assumption :
> "The MOST IMMORAL act is to kill another living being just for
> pleasure "
> As a rule animals almost never kill for pleasure -only for food
> or as a threat perception. ( A known absurd fact )
> Some human beings are known to kill just for pleasure.
> ( A known - not so absurd fact )
> Conclusion : Some humans are more Immoral than animals.
> ( An absurd conclusion from absurd premises and equally absurd
> facts)
In SOM (or Intellect!!!) where morals is the human hallmark (the
one quality that sets us aside from the rest of nature) animals are
AMORAL - not immoral.
> Thats the problem with Morals - thay are so absurd -just
> can't seem to pin them down with logic or reason . If
> they could be, Einstein would have put it all down in
> some grand mathematical equation and everybody would
> have agreed and morals would then become another object
> to be worshiped in the church of reason.
Ethics again I would say. The Value/Quality is clear enough.That is
possibly what you are saying in the following.
> And yet there is an ABSOLUTE MORAL that cuts across all
> levels, everywhere in time and space, one that can
> CLEARLY IDENTIFY one Q-level from another
> - but its not reasonable !
> Its like a joker in a pack of cards called
> life that will always have the last laugh.
> Do you know what it is ? Do you WANT to know what it is ?
> Do you CARE to know what it is ?
> Without that joker , you can add any number of Q-levels
> to the 4 of Pirsigs and jump up and down the monkey
> ladder for infinity without getting anywhere. No
> amount of intellectual gymnastics will impress this
> joker.
> This joker will show its face only when you
> are really desperate and alone in the night
> when you stare at the stars and ask the questions:
> Who am I ? What am I doing here ?
> What is the purpose of my existence ?
The joker, is Dynamic Quality I hope.
> But you will say - everything is fine in my life.I'm
> sitting pretty at the highest level -THE INTELLECTUAL
> LEVEL and all ready to make the jump to the next one.
> I dont think anybody seems to be taking David B 's
> warnings seriously about the Intellectual level being
> devoured by the social level - which is inevitable
> unless all so called intellectuals get their acts
> together - focused on a purpose.
I do take it seriously, but don't think that's the danger, rather
Intellect's alliance with Biology against Society as P. describes it
in LILA.
> I have said in my last months post that intellegence
> is a sum of two faculties :
> Reason - the tool of Analysis -the survival tool.
> Counterpart of reason - the tool of Synthesis-
> the creative tool .
> Both of these are powerful tools in the hands of
> man - with moral force these tools can create anything
> without the moral force these will destroy everything.
"Without moral force" is an impossibility in the MOQ. Intellect's
"intelligence" is - as you say - analysis or reason which has a
dynamic/creative counterpart that may be called synthesis, but
there is an "intelligence" of every level with a similar creative
component. Biology's dynamic component created Social Reality
and Society's created Intellectual Reality. But I would say that
Intellect's STATIC "intelligence" is analysis alone. The synthesis is
DQ (which works night and day to surpass Intellect).
> Reason - the tool of Analysis clarifies so much but at
> the same time blinds us to so much that at times we
> fail to see the road ahead with its pitfalls.
> The counterpart of reason - the tool of Synthesis
> prefers to lurk in the shadows - it is sensitive and shy
> but when it becomes fully operational it is like a flash
> of lightening that can illuminate all around -and sometimes
> that flash of a second can be enough to put all the pieces
> together.
I agree, but "synthesis" cannot be fully static. Why not simply
regard the Intellectual level as subject/object-analysis and the
Quality idea as the synthetical "lightning flash" that put all the
pieces of Pirsig together?
As said: Q-intellect is the highest moral plane or ETHICS as we
know it, but something beyond Intellect will naturally be a still
higher moral. I believe that solves Rick's doubt about the MOQ as a
guide. It did to me.
Bo
PS!!
Look to Magnus' "space dimension" analogy when trying to decide
what goes where. It's difficult to decide where a thing or a
phenomenon belongs. A stone is inorganic value, but if it's a gem it
is social value as well (to say that it can buy food and thus have
Biological value I find too contrived) the point is that the levels (like
space dimensions) are nowhere yet penetrate everything.
------- End of forwarded message -------
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
