[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[Laird Bedore]

> [Mark]
> Hi Laird and Case,
> Skutvik's ideas show a man who has an imagination and he can't be knocked  
> for that.
> But the SOLAQI has a basic flaw Skutvik did not wish to contemplate.
>  
> Skutvik's assertion is: The subject/object distinction is fundamental  to 
> intellectual patterns.
> It is very important to keep this central to ones analysis of Skutvik's  
> position.
>   
[Laird]
Interesting... I think that is a problem with the SOL only if the S/O 
distinction is considered as an exhaustive characterization of the 
intellectual level. That is to say, that the intellectual level consists 
only of patterns broken into S/O distinctions. As I mentioned, I don't 
buy that, but it's not enough to justify throwing the baby out with the 
bathwater. I'd just like to scrap the exhaustive part.


> [Mark] 
> However, the s/o distinction is a particular type of a more fundamental  
> distinction which may be described as static differentiation's.
>  
> There exist differentiation's at the social level and the intellectual  level 
> simply evolves these differentiation's in a more complex and abstract  
> process.
>  
> It may be observed that such processes are not reliant upon the s/o  
> distinction, but are reliant however upon static differentiation's.
>   
[Laird]
This argument implies that the subject/object split occurs at the point 
of "static patterns" (but not upon all static patterns), which is 
inclusive of all the levels, not just intellect... That's not a 
refutation of Stutvik's assertion, rather an alternative assertion. 
Let's be fair and give each their own spotlight.


> [Mark] 
> This is a very simple argument and is consistent with the moq even though  it 
> is not explicitly presented in Lila or McWatt's 'critical' analysis.
>  
>   
[Laird]
Yes, that is also implied by Pirsig with his positioning of objective 
reality in the inorganic/biological levels and subjective reality in the 
social/intellectual levels. I think either assertion is consistent with 
the portions of the MoQ more fundamental than themselves, the question 
is where each assertion takes us.

My "beef" with the static-differentiation (and Pirsig's drawing of the 
objective/subjective reality as on the Wiki) idea is that it makes 
subjects and objects into existents prior to any intellectualization 
taking place. This flies in the face of the MoQ's most basic principles 
and its own arguments about the mythos - that the hard subject-object 
distinction is culturally-derived (with a footnote to thank the Greeks). 
If the subjective and objective realities are prior or 
fundamentally-inherent to the static levels, how could culture 
(social-level, intellectual-level, or a bit of both) be the source of 
the subject-object distinction? To resolve this problem while 
maintaining the static-differentiation principle means throwing out the 
S/O cultural derivation and likely much, much more- pandora's box opens. 
If we keep both, it's a chicken-egg problem, and I scream mu!

The MoQ assertion that reality is made up of patterns of value rather 
than subjects and objects is threatened by the static differentiation 
principle. I like the first MoQ assertion too much to let static 
differentiation whittle it away until we're left with either a castrated 
MoQ (early ZMM-quality creates subjects and objects, and that's all, 
folks!) or just plain SOM. Thus my aim at SOL and pondering if it needs 
any modification.

With the SOL, principal reality remains (exhaustively) patterns of 
value. Subjects and objects only exist as analogues to these patterns, 
and the S/O distinction takes place exclusively within the intellectual 
level. The distinction doesn't do anything to the patterns of value - 
they're just analogues. Among other things, all of SOM resides within 
these (intellectual) analogues.

When things happen exclusively at, say, the social level in your analogy 
below, two or more patterns are interacting (presumably with some degree 
of DQ - at least enough to bring the patterns into contact), and they 
can interact all they like. Social authority pattern can work with 
celebrity leader pattern with no subject-object distinction - those 
distinctions are merely what we call our intellectual observations of 
the patterns.

> [Mark]
> Now, if we read static differentiation's back into the SOLAQI then it may  be 
> observed that the s/o distinction already existed before intellectual  
> patterns; social authority relies upon the celebrity leader being differentiated  
> from those who follow, for example.
>   
[Laird]
Sticking an alternative assertion inside the original assertion will of 
course create paradox, but it doesn't really say anything about either 
assertion other than the already-known fact that they're competing 
assertions.

Of course this is just a tiny piece of an awful big picture - any other 
picture-pieces that raise contention would be much appreciated!

Cheers Mark,
-Laird