Hi Mati Welcome off the bench. 10 Oct. you wrote: (To the MD but I take the liberty to answer from here)
> You wrote in response to Paul: > > Right, neither subject[ive] nor object[ive] can be without the other. > My question: MOQ talks about evolutionary process, where the objective > reality (Inorganic & Biological) came first. Later with the advent of > the social reality was the birth of the "Subjective" Reality. Though > it may have not been recognized as such until much later in the social > history and perhaps wasn't fully recognized until the S/O split. It > seem to me that in order to have the subjective reality you must have > the objective reality but that doesn't seem to be the case in the > reverse. Can this assumption be correct? You have got Pirsig's way of integrating the SOM in the MOQ correct, but there are shortcomings with this way (inorg+bio=objects ..etc.) of tucking the SOM in under the MOQ. > > But the point of OUR debate is that the S/O divide isn't valid, the > > DQ/SQ is. > Both realities seem valid or might have missed something. The starting point is that the MOQ wrestles the metaphysical 'M' away from the SOM and the latter (reduced to S/O) must find some place inside MOQ's static hierarchy. Pirsig suggests the (inorg+org=objective/soc+intell=subjective) way, but this becomes dubious confronted with his other theory, namely that the link between SOM's 'O' and 'S' is MOQ's biological+social "steps". Look, if "objective" isn't solely the inorganic level, but the biological too, and "subjective" isn't just intellect, but also the social level .... then there IS no link left. > > Thus there are no separate idea realm that gives rise to > > things. Ideas are part and parcel of the S/O aggregate ...which is > > best seen as MOQ's intellect, because there is even an inconsistency > > in the S/O as "...having no connection" and that of being stages. The > > inorganic universe existed for billions of years with no > > "subjectivity". > > No, the S/O emerged simultaneously as MOQ's intellect. > Mati: Agreed. I am also correct that "Ideas" themselves were part of > both the social & Intellectual level? It seems to me that "Ideas" > itself is not exclusive to mankind. Agree, ideas are at least part of the social and intellectual realities, but then "ideas"? What are they? Fixed patterns of thoughts or merely "mental" imagery? A sleeping dog twitching its limbs certainly experience a lot of "mental" images. In fact it is SOM that has given us the idea term. > There are several animal > behaviors that in my mind clearly suggest that animal have "Ideas" yet > don't have the capacity articulate them and it is not necessary for > them to do so. Exactly! > This may be irrelevant, except to say that ideas > themselves is not the exclusive underpinning of the intellectual > level. Most relevant and we must confront ourselves with these observations and not start from intellect's own premises. > > This is why I want to see the intellect as the S/O divide ...and the > > MOQ as something beyond ....then (with all screws in place) you can > > say: "Within the MOQ framework." The MOQ can never be understood from > > intellect's premises without creaating inconsistencies. > The analogy I think of is in social level. For me the social level is > defined by the capacity for social learning. This requires the > ability to communicate. With the advent of Language the stage was > stage was set for the intellectual level to break away. Yes, language was the ultimate social pattern and the stage was set, but it might so for tens of thousands of years with no "acting" upon it. > I see that > much of the intellectual level is the S/O divide as the intellectual > level. I must be adamant here: The social-intellectual transition isn't language itself, nor our ancestors "discovering" that words aren't reality. Wim correctly pointed to the ancients knowing the difference between an animal and its name. Again the Jaynes idea as it applies here: The voice-thought transformation created the impression of a "thought" realm, thus it is the internal/external DIVIDE which is intellect's value. NOT THE INTERNAL ONE which is an illusion, because Pirsig says that it's the easiest thing in the world to interchange the two! Excuse me for "shouting", but it is significant NOT to be caught in intellect's snare that it is a "spiritual" (thought or mind) realm torn loose from the rest of experience. If so nothing is gained and one is waist deep in SOM ...which developed from the false yet compelling IMPRESSION of such a tearing-loose. > MOQ is part of the evolutionary process that further defines > the Intellectual Level. My guess if the S/O divide had not be > recognized MOQ would have not evolved. Knowing that, the MOQ the stage > is perhaps set that we might be able to move toward the the "Budding > 5th Level" which I have heard about. What is that level about? I don't > have a clue yet. In any case this has been on my mind for sometime. Yes, the SOM or (as we now speak moqish) the S/O is necessary for the conception of the MOQ. I call it a "rebel intellectual pattern" this implies that intellect can't "reform", its S/O ways are too deep set, the MOQ must either become a S/O imprinted or "get out". This is my accusation toward certain people here, the "idea"-talk is running intellect's errand. Sincerely Bo (as I use for my internet identity :) MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/ MF Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe from moq_focus follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/mf/subscribe.html
