[MD] Re Proposed solution to SOL/Intellectual level

[MarshaV]

Nice analogies Andre, and why my favored way of explaining the 
MoQ is to state:  Quality (unpatterned experience & patterned
experience.)  All the rest is analogy.  Even calling the patterns
in the 3rd level 'Social' is an analogy.  Of course it's all quality/
value first.  But patterns have boundaries that are conventionally 
use, but absolutely false.  

So I see no reason analogue/analogy is not a useful description,
analogy if you like, of static patterns of value.   


Marsha


On Jan 17, 2010, at 9:05 AM, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Hi All
> In my post to Ron I made one and other clear based on my reading of
> Northrop. Reflecting on what I said I came to the conclusion that I
> hadn't been 'radical' enough. Language, words we use, are social
> PoV's. They do not operate outside the DQ/SQ configuration. They are a
> fundamental part of it.
> To suggest that words are something else to what they denote is to
> fall victim to symbolism and makes a mockery of this social PoV.
> 
> Why, for example does the MoQ avoid, nee refuses to use the term 'God'?
> Because it has low quality connotations and associations and does not
> accurately represent Quality.
> 
> Why does the MoQ do away with words such as 'substance',
> 'cause-and-effect' and replaces them with 'patterns' and 'preferences'
> ? Because these reflect the relationships in the levels more
> accurately.
> The MoQ means what it claims and it is the most profound claim ever made!
> 
> Why this distortion of words and their meaning? Why suggest that words
> are analogies? Within the MoQ perspective they are not.
> I think it may be the SOM legacy that has made such a mess of things.
> Confused things so much that we do not know whether we are coming or
> going. Part of this confusion is outlined in both ZMM and LILA and
> which I tried to make clear to Ron.
> 
> An event happens...direct experience...but we have to wait for the
> written reports to appear ( plus a recommendation to visit the shrink
> umpteen times) to be told what 'really' happened. And that what we do
> find in these reports are SOM interpretations. So called factual, so
> called, scientific, so called independent and so called objective.
> Words in the service of S/O intellect.
> 
> A social PoV has become the plaything of intellect. The way poor
> Phaedrus was torn to bits by Socrates. When this happens you can see
> that the higher level pattern rips the lower level pattern out of its
> context...resulting in deletion, distortion and generalisation...plus
> a host of other things that gave 'life' to the pattern at which level
> it originated.
> 
> This SOM pattern as Intellect, this scientific understanding of
> reality was 'fathered' by Aristotle. It was around this time it was
> born. I argue that it was still- born ( no offence intended to anyone
> who has ever experienced such a tragedy). It lay in suspended
> animation for centuries and was only used by the Christian Church to
> further their own cause ( e.g. Thomas Aquinas) and to make the
> Christian doctrine at least a little more 'truth- acceptable, to be
> founded upon scientific Platonic/Aristotelian doctrines, to give it
> credence and the power to wield this 'evidence' to the contrary during
> the Terror of the Spanish Inquisition.
> 
> Come Renaissance and the Enlightenment. Descartes, Newton, Locke etc
> etc. Aristotle's scientific doctrine is resurrected. (Still fear of
> the Church with whom it has now close ties).
> 
> Pirsig argues that this pattern, now slightly modified to accomodate
> new discoveries and especially Descrates, was actively employed to
> dominate society on Nov. 11, 1919. Armistice Day. By then SOM had
> developed into a full- fledged adolescent however, with no 'modern'
> social experience. (it came from Greek culture, through the Dark Ages
> and ended up being employed at the start of the twentieth century. It
> got the job of managing a system it was never trained for. It never
> completed its apprenticeship (it could be argued it is doing it now!).
> 
> It had no idea what it was confronted with- the connection between it
> and its parent level had been severed many, many centuries before.
> They were strangers to one another. It went off on a tangent of its
> own, creating neologisms left, right and centre to bridge the
> unavoidable and unfatomable gap...to no avail. ZMM discusses this
> beautifully.
> 
> Words, as social PoV's became empty and this is why there is unrest,
> in the West at the social level which expresses itself in the crisis
> of Democracy, crises in Education, crises in the Health and Welfare
> sector, the Economic sector... everywhere. A rust-belt Pirsig tems it,
> and he is right.
> 
> I began wandering about the birth of this pattern. I believe it can be
> argued, based on my own piddly effort and Pirsig's insight that this
> scientific understanding has not fully emerged into the intellectual
> level as MoQ level. Pirsig asks, rightly, is science, in fact,
> independent of society ..and answers not at all. Aristotelian science
> and its developments are in fact not separate from society at all. It
> is a farce to suggest otherwise.
> 
> This makes for an opening: if that is indeed the case (as the MoQ
> argues) then I argue that the SOL, the subject/ object distinction is
> a dominant Western CULTURAL pattern, a combination of social and
> intellectual values meshed together.
> 
> It hinges between the social and the intellectual. The SOL is a
> cultural pattern of value.
> 
> This clears up a few things: it accounts for differing cultural
> integrations of the two ( e.g. Pirsig's difference between one
> importance in Germany and crossing the border into France the
> importance is lost).
> 
> It accounts for a different CULTURAL development in the Orient.
> 
> It explains Pirsig's definition in the letter to Paul Turner.
> ...manipulation of symbols (and words are not symbols!!) that have no
> direct...etc. and makes this fit in with the proposed view.
> 
> That is the intellectual level proper. Pure symbol manipulation
> without social pattern words. It overcomes the 'suspended in language'
> thing though that challenge, that 'sales- trick' still remains.
> 
> Now we have the MoQ. We have DQ/SQ. Let this social PoV come to its
> own again within the DQ/SQ configuration (a language used is a
> 'living' language).
> 
> DQ/SQ=Reality. What else does it refer to? Concepts, abstractions,
> analogies? Christ allmighty. Before the MoQ I had a girlfriend- now,
> with the MoQ I have an analogy pointing to a girlfriend. I have
> nothing but a concept in my own arms sometimes! Ridiculous!
> 
> The words Pirsig uses are social PoV's with precise meanings. He is
> very fussy about them as the LC annotations show.
> 
> I am with Bodvar on this one...not sure if he is with me after this post!!
> 
> I have the menu and have been consuming some very sumptuous meals thank you!
> 
> I know there are holes in this. At places I have short-circuited
> things. Please consider this as a constructive suggestion only. I
> respect the intellectual efforts of Bodvar and Mr. Pirsig.
> 
> I suggest that this may get us closer to a 'solution' realising that
> all is provisional and no Papal Bull.
> 
> Time for my electric blanket.
> 
> Good night
> Andre
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/

  
_______________________________________________________________________
   
Shoot for the moon.  Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars...