[MD] The Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics

[John Carl]

Mary:

Hello Everyone,
>
>
John:

Hello Mary.


> I have no idea where to start.


John:  Start with a brick.

Mary:


> Away for a few days and the deluge of posts
> is overwhelming.  I asked for an Intellectual Pattern that is not SOM
> based.
> Of course, someone threw this one out:
>
> > Pirsig:
> > 129. I've always thought this is incorrect because many forms of
> > intellect do not have a subject-object construction. These include
> > logic itself, mathematics, computer  programming languages, and, I
> > believe some primitive languages (although I can't remember what they
> > are).
>
> I am sorry, but I find this absurd.  I have mentioned before that Pirsig
> has
> from time to time said things that made my hair stand on end.  This is one
> of them.



John:   Is this kind of an Afro?  Or more of a beehive type of
hair-standing?

Mary:

 Everything that has ever passed through your head or mine is 'me'
> (or you) thinking ABOUT something.


John:

Well, the thing is, in metaphysics we try and go a bit deeper than assuming
"I" have a "me" when we're arguing about the primacy of subject/object
thinking and basing the conclusion upon this tightly held assumption.  And
on deeper analysis, it turns out that this "thinking ABOUT" is actually the
same thing as the "you" doing the thinking.  That split  is assumed in your
formulation, but not  logically valid.

And you can stomp your pretty little foot and pout all you want, but that
doesn't change the fact that this ME so evident to you, is nuthin' but pure
social hypnosis.




> Logic itself is entirely based in the
> subject, the thinker, analyzing the object, the thing thought about.  Is
> this not plain?  Mathematics is a way to objectify or quantify the same.
>  As
> to computer languages, the early ones were not blatantly subject-object
> only
> because they were not yet advanced enough - but that was the goal.  Now
> days, all computer languages follow a strict subject-object model and that
> the earlier ones followed a functional model, which is exactly the same
> thing, only appear different because of differing in the descriptive
> terminology of the day.  Descriptions of anything at all are examples of
> subject-object logic.  A 'description' is 'me' in here, describing a thing
> 'out there'.  Nothing else.  If I am describing the Tao, I am objectivizing
> a mystical experience in terms my logical brain can understand.  Nothing
> else.  Whatever I describe will not be the 'Tao'.  Then, of course, there
> is
> 'language'.  All language is a form of 'me' speaking to 'you'.  Need I
> continue?  Is this something we need argue about?  Really?
>


Nah, there are more things under heaven and earth to be discussed, than we
can even dream.

"The man of character lives at home without exercising his mind and performs
actions without worry.... Appearing stupid, he goes about like one who has
lost his way.  He has plenty of money to spend, but does not know where it
comes from."

Chuang-tzu


But if you wanna argue about it, as you seem to, I'll ask, how can the
cortex observe and control the cortex?  Your "self" that you're so sure
about, is simply a complex of social information relayed back into the
cortex - this is social misinformation when it pretends to be other than it
is, when it pretends to be fundamental.  All it really is is an unconscious
pretense that the organism contains a higher system than the cortex.

Hypnosis, in other words.


>
> There is far too much volume for me to process each post made in the past
> few days and reply directly, though as I encounter the most egregious ones
> I
> reserve the right. I haven't even read anything from today yet, but I see a
> definite pattern.
>
> I do not agree with Bo about everything.  For instance, his idea (though
> discussed clearly by Pirsig) that Quality was understood by
> pre-intellectual
> societies.  Bunk.  The Social Level values 'morality', but as Pirsig also
> says (thus contradicting himself) it is a 'morality' that has nothing to do
> with Quality.  IMHO, if we were closer to Quality before the Intellectual
> Level it is only because we had not yet chosen to give our tremendous egos
> the free reign they enjoy with the advent of the Intellectual Level itself.
> Social 'morals' kept the Biological ego in check just as they keep many
> other Biological 'urges' under control.  When the Intellectual Level broke
> free of suffocating Social/religious strictures, there was no longer
> anything with enough authority to corral ego.  The Intellectual Level can
> be
> summarized as valuing two Patterns of Value.  The subject-object logic we
> have been carrying around since the stone-age and before, plus the
> 'attitude' that made it legal to question 'authority' - God or otherwise.
> There was no Intellectual Level before that.  If you question accepted
> authority you are violating a strict Pattern of Value at the Social Level.
> You cannot be operating at the Social Level.  SOM - the Intellectual Level
> is the marrying of these two concepts - ancient subject-object logic with
> the 'new' attitude that snubs its nose at authority and says (basically)
> 'man is the measure of all things'.  These two alone, when combined, form
> the entire foundation of the pattern of values that distinguish the
> Intellectual Level from the Social Level.  If you don't agree, then you
> MUST
> be able to explain exactly what pattern of values the Intellectual Level
> holds that IS different from the Social Level pattern of values.  Does this
> not make sense?
>


Does what not make sense?  Sorry.  I wasn't listening.




> At least, we were recently able to clear up the controversy over whether
> the
> levels consisted of Patterns of Value that "went off on purposes of their
> own" from previous levels or not.  It was really a relief to hear Pirsig
> affirm this once again in the recent DVD.  Yes, he said things that curled
> my hair in that DVD, but he also said things that affirmed his PREVIOUS
> statements.  If he had failed to affirm this one, then indeed all would be
> lost.  You would have to accept an MoQ equivalent to John's, where the
> levels are turned upside down and Intellectual Level values rule all else -
> no, CREATED all else out of whole cloth.  How bizarre.  Or shall we argue
> about that too?
>

Curled your hair and THEN made it stand on end?  Or did it stand on end
first, making it easier to put the curlers in?

Whole cloth?  Hmmm... I wonder what that looks like.  I merely point out
that life is creative and dominant of inorganic matter, society is creative
and dominant of biological beings, ideas are creative and dominant of
societies.  DQ is dominant and creative of ideas.  It seems so much more
obvious than random particles chance upon life, etc.  That's what I'd call
bizarre.

As far as arguing goes, if the spirit moves, do it.  If not, don't.



>
> Enough for one night. Perhaps later on I'll have the energy to explain why
> I
> don't believe in "Intellectual bashing" in the way Arlo seems to think we
> all do - even though this should be obvious, but is 'obviously' not.  A
> hint.  The arguments I've heard so far of how it is that myself and others
> in agreement with me are 'anti-intellectual' are actually unwittingly
> anti-intellectual.  Priceless irony abounds.
>
> Best,
> Mary
>
>
Best to you too Mary.  Nice avatar btw.  I like  nom de plumeweb a lot and
hope you can keep  him going for a while.  I figure he must be yours cuz he
seems too intelligent to be an actual male.  Priceless irony indeed.

Take care,

John