Re: LS Solaqi or not Solaqi: that's the problem?
MARCO FINISHED HIS LAST QUANTUM OF ENERGY AND THIS IS HIS LAST POST OF THE MONTH. My dear impervious Bo, it's not my will to divide MOQ between Northern (Bo and Magnus) and Southern (Denis, me...) Pirsigians. The division between Right and Left Hegelians was the beginning of such a lot of problems! I wrote: > > Maybe the main point is to persuade Bo to this conclusion. But I > > begin to understand him: if SOM is "only" an intPoV, and MOQ is > > "only" another one, what will happen when the fifth level will > > rise? Our intellectual pattern, our metaphysics, our MOQ, will > > combat it , and we will be on the wrong side > And this was your answer: > YES! That's why I so badly want to see the Quality idea as a movement > beyond Intellect. Allow me to pursue the evolutionary development > seen in the SOLAQI light. It sort of requires that each level once > were its ages' metaphysics=ALL THERE IS, and that the former was > degraded once a new level came of age (To speak of the Inorganic as a > metaphysics a bit weird but note that the physical/mental is no part > of the MOQ). All right, once Biology had established itself it became > ALL THERE IS, and the Inorganic were degraded into food or material > for life. When Society spread itself on top of it, it became ALL > THERE IS (we have reached agreement that any level is oblivious of > any movement above itself) and Biology was degraded to "members" who > were supposed to sacrifice themselves for the good of the many. As > Intellect took over evolution's baton IT became ALL THERE IS (SOM) > and Society was stripped of all honours and hardly tolerated (Ref. > LILA about Intellect's contempt for Society). > Ok , a Level is not a sum of patterns, is the age in wich patterns of the same kind become "leaders" of evolution. This means that intPoV were existing thousands of years ago, but only in this century they have been able to break loose from socPoV: that's why, for example, for the first time a Nation (U.S.A.) has been defeated in a war (Vietnam) because intPoVs of American people did not support that war. I think we agree on this point (?). > And now the strength of the SOM=Intellect idea shows. As you point out > if the MENTAL/MIND image of Intellect is maintained where various > metaphysics reside there is no way forward. Nothing can surpass such a > value level! Are you sure? Bio patterns don't not see the society they created is a living Giant; and the U.S.A. brought forward the idea of freedom (initially mainly to break loose from Europe ), without suspecting that the same idea one day would have been able to cause the Vietnam defeat. So I can argue that if a fifth level will come, maybe we are not still able to see it. And evolution is slow: maybe it will happen in 5000 A.D.! > But the main MOQ tenet is that DQ never rests and will > try to break loose from its latest static latch, and use it for its > own purpose: as its own servant/material. It is fully possible > to break loose from the SOM-Intellect; the subject/object metaphysics > is then stripped of its ALL THERE IS epaulettes and degraded into > subject/object logic or SO-intelligence: a high value but not > REALITY itself! > > To break from SOm's prison is to me the enormous potential of > the MOQ that - a decade after LILA's publication - still gives > me the thrills, and why I am so Jesuitic in my exorcism of the MIND > interpretation of Intellect. Something that turns it into a trite > spiritual theory. To prove that everything is (in the) mind - or > that language is IT ALL - is child's play if you accept the > mind/matter metaphysics in the first place. > Yes, MOQ has the potential you are talking about. But also Plato's and Aristotle's thought was able to surpass all what were: the age of Pythagoras, Parmenides, Heraclitus... and the same happened with Kant, I guess. However, we are on the same side, I think; SOLAQI or not SOLAQI we all agree that MOQ is a new way to explain the world, and maybe will be able to change the story of human thought. PEACE! MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
R: LS Solaqi or not Solaqi: that's the problem?
MARCO IS AN HERETIC AND IS GOING TO BRING IN THE CHURCH OF MOQ THE EVIL'S
SPELL
Bo, Roger and ... Marco
The heresy within this post is double: firstly, I'm answering to myself;
secondly I will quote the Evil Spell...
... but the meaning of "heReTic" seems to me " someone clashing RT" !
(and maybe searching for DQ)
Bo wrote:
>
> I am - as said - convinced that Aristotle said that SUBSTANCE
> is reality while the running FORM is transient and illusory. I
> contest that words (horse or dog) was his "substance", but the very
> DICHOTOMY which did not follow our present lines slowly shifted up
> through the ages ("Nominal/universal" was the Medieval dividing
> line) to the one that we know as Cartesian today.
>
Roger Parker wrote:
> ROG NOW RESPONDS:
> Yes, 'substance' was Aristotle's concept. Before this the Greeks had the
> concept of 'change' and the concept of 'being', and the concept of 'form'.
> After Aristotle came the concepts of 'elements and compounds', then the
> concept of 'molecules' , then the concept of atoms, then the concept of
> 'energy', and the concept of 'subatomic particles'. Next came the concept
of
> 'probabilities, followed closely by the concept of 'quarks', then of
> 'fields', of 'interrelationships', and the current conceptual champion
> 'static patterns of value'.
>
Marco (me?, maybe no more, now!), wrote:
>
> I don't agree. Effectively Aristotle said that Reality is a "synolos" (a
> synthetic unity) of substance and form. His division was an attempt to
> define reality, analogue to Pirsig's attempt (Reality as a synolos of DQ
and
> SQ). Aristotle said also that form can't be without substance and vice
> versa. This sentence was a great step beyond, and it was a great attempt
to
> unify the Plato dichotomy Idea/Shadow (Plato did not feel the urge to
unify
> reality). The problem is that it was a good step in a wrong direction...
He
> tried to unify reality under the banner of Truth.
The Present Marco writes:
There's an imprecision in Bo's sentence, but not in the sense that Old Marco
pointed out. The mistake is that Bo seems to say that the Aristotle's
dichotomy is between Substance and Form. This is not correct. Old Marco did
not see it, and remembering something about the "synolos" concept answered
with another imprecision.
Roger correctly pointed out that the 'substance' was Aristotle's concept.
So a third Mid Marco, situated between the Old and the Present, took an old
book: the History of Philosophy by Francesco Adorno, and found this:
[ I'm quoting and translating at the same time...]
"Aristotle agrees with Plato's opinion that Science must search for what's
Universal, Eternal and Immutable; but Plato was ambiguous dividing this
Universal by things.[...]
Aristotle denies that Form is separated [...] Form has not existence of its
own [...] and matter also [...] , without a Form, is impossible to be
thought and doesn't exist. So the Essence of things is not for Aristotle the
separated Form, or the separated Matter; it's on the contrary the unity of
both Matter and Form: the Synolos. [...] Form (eidos) is the intelligible
beginning of reality , but , separated by his matter (hyle), is abstraction
( i.e. object of intellectual knowledge). [...] reality is always Synolos of
Matter and Form. "
This was what Old Marco remembered. But he did not remember well that the
Aristotelian dichotomy was between Matter and Form.
He remembered also another latin sentence about Aristotle, but he wasn't
able to find it in some old book... "Amico Plato sed magis amica Veritas"
(Plato is a friend, but Truth is a better friend) .
However , that sentence means that Aristotle's attempt was to unify , not to
divide.So what is Reality in Aristotle's metaphysics?
In the same book , Mid Marco found in the section "Documents" some original
material of the Evil Himself, under the italian title: "Sostanza":
(greek "Ousia" , what is permanent; latin: Substantia , what stays below).
[Here you see how is difficult to translate, as also Denis pointed out].
In "Metaphysics", book seventh,
ARISTOTLE wrote:
"[...] the main meaning of Being is "the essence of an object" , that's
what indicate his Substance [...]. It's obvious that, by the use of this
category, [...] the Being in his main meaning , i.e. not some qualification
of being, but the simple and pure Being, equals to Substance."
[This is the starting point. He says that there's an immanent reality in
things, and he coins for it the word "Substance". ]
"This is the main problem of every past, present and future search; the
always open and discussed question: what is Substance?.
[he goes on by considering the thesis of matter as Substance, and he
concludes that] .., this is impossible: in fact we agree that fundamental
properties of Substance are distinguishibility and individuality, and that's
why we find more authentic that Form, or better the unity of Form and
Matter, is the Substance".
The Present Marco closes this
LS Solaqi or not Solaqi: that's the problem?
Denis, David B. , Bo and SQUAD it seems that this is a never ending month: the topic is "alive", and growing everyday: that's good, don't you think? Denis: Re-reading my last post about your language idea I started smiling: surely I've been exaggerated in my adulation, but I wrote it in a complete "enthousiasmos" state of mind... However, I want to remind you I only "defined" you as a Genius... you know what I mean ... you have been a Genius just for me and just in that time (this is to push your Ego a little down!) I thank you for your rectifications: > Two rectifications : first, my belief (but I could be wrong) is that the > ACCIDENTAL birth of a dynamic language allowed human societies to become > more competitive. The reason why language became dynamic may be that its > support switched from DNA-encoded "instinct" to memory. It might also be > a strange change in the memory process (derived from a genetic > mutation), making it more flexible. and... > You might have noticed it, but my last post didn't talk much about the > social level. Re-reading the above part about memory, you can see that a > biological change seems to be the root of language's dynamicism : so > where is the social level ? It's very difficult to say how language became dynamic in human beeings.. every theory can be good and bad at the same time. You can find in that process the act of GOD (if you are religious), or the act of random (if you are atheist), or the act of Quality (if you are Pirsigian), or the act of some interstellar superior intelligence (if you liked Kubrik's 2001 space odissey) ... However you can "only" find a good working theory. I wrote " If I understand ... the birth of intellectual level was EVOKED by societies". I used "evoked" and not "caused" trying to say that it was a choice among many chances : that's my "definition" of evolution (my English is how I can, so maybe "evoke" was not the right word?). I think that the possibility of a Dynamic Language was already stored in human DNA, and only when men begun to develop social patterns they found in themselves this opportunity, and it was ... good (if you don't live within a society, how can you need a language?). Maybe that "birth of intellectual level" is not correct... I had to say "birth of intellect... ". Finally I think this has been the process: Social>Language>Intellect>Int. Level; the "emergence" of Language was the first small step of Intellect. (Maybe also that we have many other hidden possibilities, and we are not still able to find them ?) Your second rectification is more interesting to me. > My second rectification isn't really one. It's about art. Art doesn't > seems to equate with any one of the levels. It's not biological, surely > not inorganic, to say it is social looks like insulting art to me, and > intellectual ?... well, my definition of Q-Intellect doesn't seem to > have much place for art. Q-Intellect is about defining, and defining > art... well, we know what Pirsig thinks about *that*, don't we ? (Avid, > Roger and David B. had a argument about that in the moq_discuss forum) > Remember, Pirsig said there were 5 codes of Morality, the last one being > the Code of Quality, or Code of Art. Art is the trace that a Dynamic > Event (one might say : a mystic event) leaves in our perception. It is a > rendering of this experience, and as such must be left out of the > levels. It transcends them, IMHO. I wrote that language " evolved to words, opinions, philosophies... and to cave pictures, arts, science, technology... in one word: Intellect." I found two branches of language evolution: The first words, opinions, philosophies...seems to be well accepted; I try to explain the second. Firstly we must accord about Art: it's Art (RT!) the maintenaince of a motorcycle; as well as rhetoric, theatre, sculpture, painting... Let's talk about this last kind of Art. The primal form of painting seems to be the cave paintings. Usually that works show hunt scenes or some ritual activity. Maybe (I say maybe!) the purpose of that paintings were just to show what happened during hunting games, or to teach young generation how to perform the tribe rituals. (That seems to me like the slides we use everyday when we want to support our language with imagines). In this case, that kind of art was mainly a form of language (we must remeber that for children it's easier to paint than to write, when they want to communicate something). However that art is a language, as it communicates us something about life of cave men. The Art we know evolved by that simple activities. There are two sides in Art, I think: technique and meaning. Technique seems to be the static aspect... you need a good technique if you want to be an artist, and you can learn technique... Meaning is the Dynamic aspect; if you have nothing to say you are only a good craftsman. Pirsig equals quality and art? So I do, by distinguishing his dynamic and static aspect!.
