Hi All Foci.
This weekend's messages were very positive. Metaphorically we
are back at the heart of the matter. Best of all was the the
exchange between Dan and Mark which ended with this declaration
from MARK:
> Thanks for taking the time to critique my thinking once
> again. Things are beginning to clarify now. Yes, you're
> right, there is no "concrete reality" in the MOQ. I clearly
> was falling into the SOMist trap! In the MOQ, the static
> value patterns of language are not ABSTRACTED FROM but
> rather BUILT UPON lower level value patterns. Language is
> then of both the social and intellectual levels. At the
> social level, language was/is wholly in the service of
> society as a communication tool: without the concept of
> self, in the sense of an 'I' consciously projecting a
> concrete reality into an imagined mind space. Then, with
> the emergence of the transitional value pattern-
> 'subjective conscious mind', language was carried over into
> the service of this more evolved level.
I won't smudge it by commenting.
DAN said to Jonathan (who had said to me )
> > Jonathan:
> > I agree that language is a primary vehicle for intellectual activity
> > since the dawn of human civilization - long, long before the
> > emergence of subject-object based philosophy. Where I disagree is
> > your attempts to limit Intellect to subject-objectivism only.
> > Pirsig's novels and the MOQ website are strewn with quotes from
> > great intellectuals such as Einstein and Poincare that attach great
> > importance to the emotional/intuitive part of intellect.
> Dan:
> This is one of my concerns too with Bodvar's SOLAQI theory. However, I
> tend to see the development of language as evolutionary valuing of
> preconditioned subject/object awareness. For example, Bo once
> mentioned Helen Keller and her struggle to gain knowledge to
> communicate with others. Metaphorically seen in her light, certainly
> we humans possessed language skills before civilization, but without a
> preconditional way (language in humans) in which to communicate,
> social structures would have no value latching opportunities. Before
> civilization as historically recorded, humans lived and thrived and
> died for tens and hundreds of thousands of years quite possibly in
> tribal\family units, which again value preconditioned communication. I
> seriously doubt there could be language as we know it without
> preconditioned subject/object awareness.
It takes an Herculean effort to tune in on another person's
perception of what is said. If I get Dan correctly his concern about
my SOLAQI (that Q-Intellect is the S/O-logic) is related to
Jonathan's above where he starts by saying:
> I agree that language is a primary vehicle for intellectual
> activity since the dawn of human civilization - long, long before
> the emergence of subject-object based philosophy.
I think that Jonathan and I have a little disagreement in spite of
declarations of agreement. When a stone age group gathered
around the fire and spoke to each other, language was not a
vehicle of Intellect in the MOQ sense. It was an enhancing of (the
social) INTELLIGENCE which the still older hominides used body
signals to convey. There were no "sceptics" who used language to
say: "I doubt if the stars REALLY are gods ...etc". Language was a
great leap, but not in itself the leap from the Social level to the
Intellectual level.
So, in the above light I wonder if our (Jonathan & mine)
disagreement is substantial? I also wait for Dan to say if this
changes anything.
JONATHAN continued:
>Where I disagree
> is your attempts to limit Intellect to subject-objectivism only.
> Pirsig's novels and the MOQ website are strewn with quotes from
> great intellectuals such as Einstein and Poincare that attach
> great importance to the emotional/intuitive part of intellect.
Intellect MUST be limited lest it becomes everything and nothing is
gained. Emotion is THE social "expression" and as such the base
for Intellect (just as Biology [sensation] is the base of Society and
Matter [interaction] is the base of Life). "Intuitive" it may be called a
bit condescendingly by an Intellect that has cut its moorings and
believes itself to be a free-floating MIND.
WAVEDAVE wrote:
> William James coined the term "radical empiricism" and latter expanded
> C Pierce's earlier work which became known as "pragmatism."
C Pierce? Could that be Charles Peirce? If so immensely
interesting. I have many times referred to his "Semiosis
Metaphysics" as useful in shedding the SOM approach to the
MOQ (ie: that it is just another theoretical abstraction), and I
wonder what William James says about Peirce? Dave, do I find it
anywhere on the Web?
> Later in the section on the pragmatic method in the essay "The Present
> Dilemma in Philosophy" James slices philosophy into two basic camps
> based on their view of reality. The Rationalistic (going on the
> 'principles' 'abstract') camp and the Empiricist ( going by 'facts'
> 'concrete" 'experience') camp. So when Bo and Jonathan exchanged:
> Bo
> <<Abstract in contrast to concrete is arch-SOMish and by making
> <<that the opening move, the scene was rigged.>>>
> Jonathan
> >Bodvar, I agree that the abstract vs. concrete thing is
> >arch-materialism. However, materialism assumes a bedrock of absolute
> >"material" reality. In MoQ, everything can be considered an
> >abstraction of something else (e.g. the relationship between the
> >levels). Had I left this unstated, your charge of scene-rigging would
> >have more substance. However, I explicitly stated that ALL patterns
> >can be considered metaphors.
Jonathan makes a shift from SOMism to materialism. I have (and
Pirsig least of all) never professed that SOMism is MATERIALISM.
No, no, there is just as much IDEALISM, those are the two
impossible positions that SOM forces upon reality.
Will we never understand the enormity of a metaphysics?
Everything - even "religion" as we know it - is in its sphere of
influence. Christendom is a typical SOM (or Intellect) development
as it has adopted the Greek S/O soul/body notion...etc. This is of
course complete nonsense if Intellect is regarded as "intelligence".
> At first blush would seem that Jonathan leans towards the rationalist
> camp while Bo leans toward other, and given Jonathan background in
> science this bias might be so. But I'm also pretty sure that in
> general they both agree with Pirsig on these three statements:
I have (at times) seen the Jonathan vs Bodvar clash as scientist vs
artist, but am not so sure if that is valid. However I also think that
we both agree .....could he just understand me :-)
> "Quality is a direct experience independent of and prior to
> intellectual abstractions." Lila-pp 64
> " Dynamic Quality is a stream of quality events going on for ever and
> ever, always the cutting edge of the present." SODV pp 12-13
> "Static Quality is the class of stable or accepted values, patterns,
> laws, customs, and theories that societies have formalized and that
> change little over time. Lila-pp 58 "
> Putting aside "writing a metaphysics is a degenerate activity",
> "abstraction," or "de-straction" for the time being [that introduces
> "beliefs" & "faith" which James also deals with succinctly but only in
> several multipage essays], I'm sure you both would agree that Static
> Quality is "abstract". The bug-a-boo comes, IMO, with Dynamic
> Quality. Is it "concrete" reality? And if it is where does that leave
> Quality?
My interpretation that S/O is Q-Intellect puts the QUALITY idea in
a position as some groping 5th level. From there abstract/concrete
has no jurisdiction outside intellect's own circle.
See the parallell Dave: Intellect has been out to de-throne social
value and promote its own universality. The MOQ as a fifth level will
do exactly the same: Its purpose is to check Intellect and elevate
itself to universality. It says: The static sequence is neither
abstract nor concrete, that is intellect's game, my game is DQ/SQ!
And I still claim that ZAMM's "Greek experience" can be regarded
alternatively as the emergence of SOM as the rise of the
Intellectual level. Ergo....! What was you position when that topic
was up Dave?
The rest of your paper is just impressive - something that would be
great at a "conference", but I get this urge to rise to the surface for
an over-view. You know the trend towards ever greater
generalizations. Once the Roman Empire was THE WORLD,
nowadays it has shrunk to a chapter of the world history, and will
shrink further, but never disappear. Likewise I foresee that SOM will
become "history" and that its way of presenting reality obsolete.
No meanness intended!
Bodvar
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
