[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[skutvik at online.no]

Horse

25 June:
 
> As far as I can see, your biggest mistake is to confuse the data of
> the intellectual level with the tools that manipulate that data. 

My fault I should have known that you have no intention of "seeing" the 
part that underpins the SOL so blatantly. Yours above show that you 
regard the 4th. level as a computer that has "ideas" in its RAM that can 
be fetched, read and re-worked ...etc. and if so everything is  
intellectual patterns. 

> The intellectual level is composed of ideas (data) and SOM, MoQ,
> metaphysics in general, science, philosophy, mathematics etc. are the
> means by which they are ordered, manipulated and presented (tools - or
> ideas about ideas). At least, that's my take on it. 

Thus SOM, MOQ - and thereby the other static levels - are I. povs? 
What makes this different from good old somish philosophical idealism 
is beyond me. It sounds like the latter-day  Pirsig in some of his most 
horrible "annotations"  in LIla's Child. F.ex. 102 page 571.   

    I see today more clearly than when I wrote the SODV paper 
    that the key to integrating the MOQ with science is through 
    philosophical idealism  which says that objects grow out of 
    ideas, not the other way around ... etc.   

> Ideas can be good or bad, supported or unsupported, weird or normal and
> a number of shades in between! 

Yes, SOM regards "ideas" as subjective mind-patterns and are good 
or bad to the degree they corresponds to objective reality. Do we need 
more SOM?

> Similarly, the tools used (ideas about
> ideas) can be simple or complicated, complete or incomplete etc. etc.
> Your insistence that the entire Intellectual level is composed of a
> single tool is what I object to and why you have to jump through hoops
> and mangle what is, for the most part simple and elegant. 

Listen. The SOL makes the Q-intellectual level wholesalely into SOM 
and that is "no single tool" God knows! It says that WHEN ON THE 
4TH. LEVEL  the term "intelligence" becomes your computer-analogy 
with all those fantastic programs and idea-"files" that you just have 
described so eloquently. Promise at least to try to understand THIS?      

> Reading through your post you are only regurgitating what you have
> repeatedly - and incorrectly - stated in the past. There is nothing new
> here and once again you have failed to make a coherent argument for
> your ideas. 

OK, I accept everything it you just will comply with trying to 
understanding the SOL. Agreeing doesn't matter.  

> I've made a few comments on your post

OK, but as not to distract you just the above.   

See you 























> 
> Horse
> 
> On 25/06/2010 06:29, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> > Horse.
> >
> > 22 June:
> >
> > You wrote
> >    
> >> If you could come up with a single coherent argument then you
> >> might, possibly, get somewhere but so far even that seem
> >> unattainable.
> >>      
> > As a first installment I would like to pursue Platt's a bit further
> >
> > Platt originally:
> >    
> >>>> Check the full quote: "Now that intellect was in command of
> >>>> society for the first time in history, was this the intellectual
> >>>> pattern it was going to run society with?" (Lila, 22) Note
> >>>> "intellect" in command of society, i.e., the intellectual level.
> >>>> One, not many.
> >>>>          
> > Arlo:
> >    
> >>> Yes, check the full quote. "was this [SOM] the intellectual
> >>> pattern it was going to run with". Thanks for proving my point.
> >>> SOM is one particular intellectual pattern.
> >>>        
> >
> > > From then on Arlo just kept parroting:  "THIS intellectual
> > > pattern" as if
> > SOM is a Western intellectual variety and that there are lots of
> > non- S/O intellectual patterns. I would like to start at some
> > earlier point (LILA's Chapter 22).
> >
> >      Now, it should be stated at this point that the Metaphysics of
> >      Quality supports this dominance of intellect over society. It
> >      says intellect is a higher level of evolution than society;
> >      therefore, it is a more moral level than society.
> >
> > See the "intellect" he speaks about is the higher level no mere
> > pattern..
> >    
> 
> What! Pirsig is supporting the dominance of intellectual patterns of
> value over social patterns as per the MoQ. No reference to SOL or SOM
> as Intellect etc. This is just you reading something into it which
> isn't there.
> 
> >       But having said this, the Metaphysics of Quality goes on to
> >       say
> >      that science, the intellectual pattern that has been appointed
> >      to take over society, has a defect in it. The defect is that
> >      subject- object science has no provision for morals.
> >      Subject-object science is only concerned with facts. Morals
> >      have no objective reality.
> >
> > This says that science have "no provision for morals", but that is
> > what charachterises the entire intellect. The only place you find
> > morals is at the social level which is the (traditional) moral level
> > par excellanec (religions) Ergo intellect = S/O.
> >    
> 
> The only reason you see it this way and have to mangle the MoQ so
> badly is because you have defined the intellectual level as SOM,
> equate that exclusively with Science and, as a consequence, get very
> confused. Philosophy is an intellectual pattern of values (a tool -
> ideas about ideas) and deals with morals - they're called ethics.
> 
> >      You can look through a microscope or telescope or
> >      oscilloscope for the rest of your life and you will never find
> >      a single moral. There aren't any there. They are all in your
> >      head. They exist only in your imagination. From the perspective
> >      of a subject-object science, the world is a completely
> >      purposeless, valueless place. There is no point in anything.
> >      Nothing is right and nothing is wrong. Everything just
> >      functions, like machinery. There is nothing morally wrong with
> >      being lazy, nothing morally wrong with lying, with theft, with
> >      suicide, with murder, with genocide. There is nothing morally
> >      wrong because there are no morals, just functions.
> >
> > This reinforces the amorality of the intellectual level.
> >    
> 
> Bullshit - it reinforces the amorality (not immorality) of Science.
> Science is not the Intellectual level, it is an intellectual pattern
> of values (tool - ideas about ideas) in competition with other
> Intellectual systems. At the point in time referred to by Pirsig in
> these quotes science was on the up-stroke (still is to a great extent
> - I don't have a problem with that) and didn't and still doesn't deal
> with morals. Science has never dealt with morals - that is best
> addressed by other intellectual patterns or tools.
> 
> >      Now that intellect was in command of society for the first time
> >      in history, was this the intellectual pattern it was going to
> >      run society with? As far as Phaedrus knew, that question has
> >      never been successfully answered. What has occurred instead has
> >      been a general abandonment of all social moral codes, with 'a
> >      repressive society' used as a scapegoat to explain any and
> >      every kind of crime. Twentieth-century intellectuals noted that
> >      Victorians believed all little children were born in sin and
> >      needed strict discipline to remove them from this condition.
> >      The twentieth-century intellectuals called that 'rubbish.'
> >      There is no scientific evidence that little children are born
> >      in sin, they said. The whole idea of sin has no objective
> >      reality. Sin is simply a violation of a set of arbitrary social
> >      rules which little children can hardly be expected to be aware
> >      of, let alone obey.
> >
> > Here is the original Platt quote where Arlo clung to the "THIS
> > intellectual pattern" straw,  but it's plain that no intellectual
> > patterns have provisions for morality, unless social patterns become
> > "intellect". The "twentieth-century intellectuals" (now twentyfirst)
> > dislikes Pirsig's blaming intellect for undermining law and order
> > and - like Arlo - cling to SOM as just one intellectual pattern, but
> > as shown - remove SOM and there is no intellect left - unless you
> > resort to  intellect = intelligence.
> >
> >    
> 
> Sorry Bo but this doesn't wash. It's just you confusing issues and
> making unsupported assertions.
> 
> > MOQ as a new intellectual pattern - which is supposed to set things
> > straight - is also untenable. Nothing that "makes provisions for
> > morals" can enter intellect without being attacked by its  immune
> > system, and I believe that is exactly what's happening. All
> > "intellectuals" works overtime to reduce  the MOQ to another
> > dee-da-dum philosophy While the mystics cembrace the Quality/MOQ.
> >
> > So Horse, think and reason for yourself, no ruminating of the
> > "Pirsig has rejected ...".
> >
> > Bodvar
> 
> I don't need Pirsig to tell me that your ideas are wrong Bo - all I
> need to do is be able to read. That Pirsig has rejected your non sense
> is just confirmation for me and the vast majority (i.e. everyone minus
> 4 or 5) of people on this list.
> 
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring
> production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid." - Frank
> Zappa
> 
> 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/md/archives.html
> 
>