[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

Sat Mar 3 05:43:41 PST 2007

Hi Mati, Hi Bo

Not sure where I stand exactly, my interpretations are embedded.

Mati: 
> Quality as the taproot of reality.  It is what it is. Undefined it is
> experience.  But as we all do we search for understanding 
> beyond experience,
> and in some ways it deepens or creates a deeper experience. 

Jos: 
Just being picky here but I'm not sure I agree that we are searching for understanding beyond experience.
We the (semi) enlightened should more properly be striving to "know" experience entirely in isolation from understanding. Really this goes to the heart of the DQ/SQ split where the "understood" is the static pattern that you analyse and churn over and over, as compared to the dynamic experience that is so fleeting.

Mati:
> Now the intellect issue. One of the most prominent issue is the formal
> definition of defining the intellect and social level.  I 
> think Pirsig has
> given us enough to delineate the social levels from those values that
> function under it, 

Jos:
Not convinced. Wherever there is an organising static pattern that is not itself of biological matter but defines the arrangement of plants, animals, machines etc (anything but humans), it defies the definitions of the levels set down by Pirsig. Clearly the pattern does not "contain DNA" but clearly it lies on top of the purely biological layer of values. Is it social? Not according to Pirsig. 
I liked a description I heard recently (sorry can't remember who it was, Bo?)
where evolution to next levels was best explained by emergence of perpendicular axes rather than increasing complexity. Using this model, we should in my view re-define the levels entirely according to fundamental existential shifts, rather than the rather arbitrary assignation of entities to levels according to their containing particular molecules or their being of species of particular genus in the eyes of our own intellects.    

Mati:
but the intellectual values and defining the static
> patterns has been up for grabs. Pirsig in his letter Paul, give some
> direction but I humbly suggest it creates more questions and 
> issues than
> concrete answers.  Pirsig himself has suggested that this is 
> unnecessary
> requirement for understanding intellect as he has commented, 
> "It is a horse,
> riding a horse." I beg to differ. If there is to be a 
> legitimate basis for
> MOQ as a metaphysical construct, I see the key factor lays in 
> our ability to
> define it. If it can't be defined, it can't be understood, 
> and if it can't
> be understood you might as well toss it out of the window 
> into the wind.

Jos:
Agreed, if there is no agreed definition of "it" amongst those who apparently support an idea then what is "it" at all? Complementarity requires "unambiguous communication" (SODV),  - without an understood structure we are a long way from that. 

> I have over the past years have conversed with Bodvar on the SOL idea.
> Frankly, I see it as the best one yet.  This didn't happen 
> overnight and I
> must say, given our heavily SOM leaden thinking patterns it 
> is really takes
> some real effort to understand the value of such a simple 
> idea. The problem
> is that we wish to understand intellect in such away that 
> does not allow us
> to see intellect for what it is.  What I mean by this is that we, many
> times, see intellect as the whole DQ/SQ notion and ask that 
> SOL to provide a
> definition that includes both the Dynamic and Static 
> qualities of intellect.
> SOL only deals with, (Bodvar will correct me if I am wrong), 
> with the static
> patterns only. If any body else has a better definition of the static
> patterns of intellect, I am all eager to listen. 

Jos:
I wouldn't claim to have an alternative "better" definition yet, but I suppose this will be a synthesis of SOL ideas with my own, perhaps you can fill me in on how far apart they are.
Ok here goes then, as I see it definitions of an intellectual level dont need to include mention of dynamic elements as these are common to all levels. The levels overall are categories of static patterns, so to define/describe one relative to another requires only definition of the static parts.
SOL is in this way a complete definition just as much as any of the other levels are (bear in mind my view that they are not properly defined either), I think of it like an equation where both sides of the equals sign are affected by a common multiple factor "x". To understand the relationship of one side to the other, there is no need to examine the properties of "x" as it's common to both sides and nets off. 

Then I drift off...
The static patterns of intellect are the patterns of "understanding", they are collections of latched descriptive patterns that are mutually compatible and make no contradiction of one another. Where there is conflict, the overall pattern values choice within the pair and rationality is favoured. We "understand" a particular set of entities where we build a static pattern of that includes them all without value conflict. It is therefore the static "understanding" of the interactions of other patterns, as opposed to (currently termed social) organising patterns of "physical" lower order entities below.   

Mati:
> As to the issue of MOQ and intellect, it had taken again 
> great effort, but I
> believe Bovver is right that MOQ is not a form of intellect 
> other than to
> say it was born from intellect but in its own right leaves 
> SOM in the dust.
> A fifth level? Not yet because there is a belief that 
> intellectual type
> thinking is intellect and MOQ is a high form of intellectual 
> thinking. It
> isn't till the world understands this and then embraces MOQ 
> capacity for
> understand the world around us. 

Jos:
MOQ as a system, is by my definition an intellectual pattern, but is able to be termed as such because it has modified its descriptions of the social patterns beneath so that they become compatible within its structure. (Remember I'm only talking about the static parts of the MOQ here)

I dont think this is in complete conflict with the SOL interpretation however, it just pushes the choice point further down the chain, I'm saying that intellect is the level of patterns where lower level patterns are slotted together according to "logical" rules. These logical rules approximate to subject/object awareness if the culture upon which the pattern is written already takes that view. 

Ah Saturday.....

Jos

> 
> 
> 
> 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/
> 
> PLEASE NOTE: THE ABOVE MESSAGE WAS RECEIVED FROM THE INTERNET.
> On entering the GSI, this email was scanned for viruses by 
> the Government Secure Intranet (GSi) virus scanning service 
> supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with 
> MessageLabs.
> In case of problems, please call your organisational IT Helpdesk.
> The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed 
> service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM 
> Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality 
> mark initiative for information security products and 
> services.  For more information about this please visit 
www.cctmark.gov.uk

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.

The original of this email was scanned for viruses by Government Secure Intranet (GSi)  virus scanning service supplied exclusively by Cable & Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs.
On leaving the GSI this email was certified virus free.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK Government quality mark initiative for information security products and services.  For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk