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

[Squonkonguitar at aol.com]

> [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.
 
Mark 24-12-06: That's exactly what Skutvik asserts.
So you agree Skutvik has a problem here. Me too.
 
Laird:
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 24-12-06: Then you dispose of the SOLAQI and replace it with something  
better.
Why introduce the SOLAQI in the first place if it's shut of so  soon?


> [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 24-12-06: I'm not implying s/o distinctions occurred at a specific  
point: i am explicitly stating the s/o distinction is a function of  
differentiation itself.
This dissolves Skutivik's position.


> [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!
 
 

Mark 24-12-06: You've not addressed the question of differentiation.
This is prior to all levels.
The hard problem you refer to is generated by insisting 'things'  exist.
If differentiation is viewed as a process, then differentiation become  
evolutionary related.

Liard:
The MoQ assertion that reality is made up of patterns of value  rather 
than subjects and objects is threatened by the static differentiation  
principle.
 
Mark 24-12-06: Static differentiation's ARE patterns of value Liard.
You have failed to recognise this.
Therefore, 'things' are patterns of value.
 
Liard:
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.
 
Mark 24-12-06: Tough.

Liard:
With the SOL, principal reality remains (exhaustively) patterns  of 
value.
 
Mark 24-12-06: Not so. If SOL is values then it would place them before its  
own distinction.
 
Liard:
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.
 
Mark 24-12-06: Lions are not intellectual but leaders of Lion packs are  
differentiated.

Liard:
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 24-12-06: By intellectual observations you mean intellectual  
differentiation's.

> [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.
 
Mark 24-12-06: The paradox is dissolved.

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
 
Mark 24-12-06: Love, Mark.