[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[David Thomas]

Hi Mary,

Thanks for your intervention. I was getting a little too bombastic. It's my
frustration showing. Pirsig pushed my button relatively late in life with a
rereading of ZaMM just a few weeks prior to the publishing of Lila. In the
early discussions I was more of an observer than contributor but I always
valued Bo approach and opinions. I go away for nearly 10 years, all the
while reading both the resources point to by RMP and other more general
philosophical material, when I come back with a tiny bit more understanding
of the issues I find Bo backed into a corner by nearly all trying to defend
what is by most opinions an untenable position with IMHO dire consequences.

In addition I think I am right in saying that Bo and I fall in to the same
group in that we are both skeptical of the net value of religion past &
going forward. Yet some kind of foundational understanding will have to
transcend it. My hope and feeling is that the MoQ just might be the seed of
that. To see it being torn apart (even inadvertently) by someone who I
thought in general supported it.  And then he dogged refuses to entertain
any suggestion he rethink, instead of dogging RMP and everybody else.
Absolutes, just piss me off.  I bet he doesn't use this approach with his
wife because it would have quick and cold real world consequences.
But, mine was not a valuable approach either.

The negative corollary to the architectural aphorism:"Beauty is in the
details" is also true. In addition beautiful details can be practically ugly
enough to destroy a building. Wright's Falling Water the best American
example of this.
 
> SOL does not equal SOM.
> It is not SOL, but SOM which is the Intellectual Level (as you state, Bo).
> 
> Definition of SOL:
> subject-object logic only.  No value judgments are implied.  It has existed
> since the Biological Level.  Many species other than our own utilize it in
> their thought processes.  It is evident, for instance, in the predator/prey
> relationship.  Any animal that doesn't know the difference is a dead animal.
> It is taken to a higher level in humanity, where we use it to invent complex
> things outside of ourselves to solve problems we happen to have.  It is the
> basis for religion and for science, being what we use to answer questions.
> It is the basis for society too; for, as Dave points out, without a
> recognition of "otherness", there would be no need for "rules of society" to
> exist.  
> 
> If one equates SOL with SOM, then the MoQ is indeed dead.  Bo, I happen to
> think this is not what you mean.  I think you are smarter than that.
> 
> Definition of SOM:
> Subject-object metaphysics.  Value judgments ARE implied.  It did not exist
> in the Biological Level.  No other species on Earth has it.  It is the next
> logical progression of SOL.  It's what you get when you take SOL as your
> foundational reality and then construct a Metaphysics from it.
> 
> If SOM is seen as the definition of the Intellectual Level rather than mere
> SOL, then the MoQ is saved.  The Social Level is constructed out of SOL,
> starting out as a support mechanism for Biological survival, which grew out
> of Biology to take on a life of its own.  Society evolved into something not
> just to support biological survival, but ultimately to support its own
> existence.  Ask any politician.
> 
> SOM grew directly out of the SOL/Social.  It is objective thinking, but
> where "objective" is now defined as an attitude rather than a simple logical
> recognition of "otherness".  It does not exist to benefit Society.  It's
> nature is to seek some kind of Objective Reality.  It uses SOL as a tool to
> accomplish this.  If the objective truth it finds is supportive of society,
> that's nice, but it's not necessary.  The objective anthropologist is a
> perfect example. 
> 
> What do you guys think?  Does that bring us any closer?
My position is that basic MoQ, though wrong is some details, the structure
as proposed in Lila is in proper evolutionary order and is good as is. And
that redefining the Intellectual Level as exclusive domain of subject object
metaphysics and pushing MoQ to a high static level or outside the SQ
structure not a detail.

My objection is not to more or less levels. Somewhere RMP says this division
is not original nor is the only way it can be done. It is just that this way
is general and simple enough to include everything. In fact we see
geologists and biologists do divide their levels down into finer, more
useful levels for their work.

I think one of the details that is the root cause of this issue is RMP
contention that the intellectual level emerged exclusively and solely in
Ancient Greece about 2500 years ago. While true for some parts of the world
the social consequences of this today are monumental. If "intellect" is not
separated from both "intelligence" and "intellectual",  taken literally this
means that unless you can trace your ancestors to being born and raised
under a philosophy descendent from Greece you do not have an intellect, have
no intellectual tradition.  Are evolutionarily inferior. Where have we seen
this before? You got it. Social Darwinism. Replace economic class struggle
with thought class struggle and hit replay.

Then if you add on Bo proposed change, not only do "you others" not have an
intellect you will never have one or evolve to the intellectual level until
you understand and adopt this Western philosophic position. Neither can you
get to the MoQ level. In evolution you do not get to skip steps. Mentioning,
let alone explaining, that to however many native Chinese are now living
there is not something I would like to contemplate. They have nuclear
weapons after all. This claim is simply the same full blown Western elitism,
Orientalism, that created the East West split to start with. How this
advances some merging of Eastern and Western philosophy I can not
understand.

I think this is a mistake in valuing metaphysical answers over the
questions. Or maybe better said not valuing that the question was asked even
though the answer arrived at would ultimately prove to be wrong. Which ties
into the question Bo asked in his last post.
>>[Dave before]
>> not the tie to radical empiricism, pragmatism, and the list goes on.
>> Of course that is solely your decision and it may be a good one.
> [Bo]
> The moment I understand the revolutionary quality of radical
> empiricism I'll decide.
It was revolutionary then, just a valuable reminder now. Simply stated RE
says that all claims such as the "empirical" claim must be forever held as
hypotheses' subject to revision or abandonment if and when a better, more
valuable, higher quality explanation come along. Not that there is no truth
but that truth just keeps getting better and better. Or not.

To which pragmatism adds an additional reminder, when trying make that
decision whether to revise or abandon one or the other of two proposed
theories one should always fully explore what future real world differences,
consequences, of adopting and acting on one vs. the other. Always adopting
the one that has the highest future quality, the most value. Or the reverse,
has the least negative consequences. And all of this is, at best is an
educated guess, that real world consequences of real actions must then be
monitored and revised as necessary in a continuous feedback loop.

To which, potentially, the MoQ adds a framework to help with the evaluation
process.

Throw out any one of these last three items you have a less valuable, lower
quality system going forward, IMHO.

Thanks Mary,

Dave  

> 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/