[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[Mati Palm-Leis]

Jos:

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: I know there is a lot of discussion about DQ as this fleeting and
possible "mystic" capacity of reality. My point is that reality is what it
is.  Yet the moment we try to understand it and explain it beyond the social
level, whether it is DQ/SQ or S/O the experience changes and becomes
metaphysics. 

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.    

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. 

Mati: Perhaps I missing the point is this a definition of the static reality
of intellect? 

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. 

Mati: I think I agree with you here if you are say that when we are just
looking at the static values, those are the only ones that can be defined.
Dynamic values are something else and are beyond a real capacity to be
defined. 

Jos: 
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. 

Mati: Please forgive me because basic mathematical processes are a
challenging. But if you are saying x=x is an intellectual understanding I
would agree.  If you suggest that itself is evidence of values that are
intellect hmmmm..... I will beg to differ. 

Jos: 
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. (Snip....)

Mati: This is a start but I think falls short. Cave man understood if there
were clouds there was a likelihood of rain. They understood the sun came up
and set. They understood many different patterns of reality.  This raises
the question how does understanding differ from intellect.  I believe the
answer is found when the right question is asked.  Prior to Aristotle's S/O
divide I am of the opinion that if you asked what reality was it based on
the social definition of the day, ie thunder came from Zeus. Then we had
many of the Greek philosopher begin to question this understanding. And in
their own way, I believe, intuitively began to ask the question what is
reality.  The S/O provided the first metaphysical "mirror" if you will to do
that. I take it one step further and suggest that prior to MOQ if it were
asked what it reality, any metaphysical answer you provided would be
tethered to the S/O divide and I believe gives credence to Bodvar's SOL
idea. 

Jos: 
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: Again rationality at it's taproot I believe we are lead back to the
SOM.

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)

Mati: I am only talking about static patterns as well.  And again, as Pirsig
letter to Paul point out, intellectual and intellect are two separate
things. You are correct that MOQ is intellectual but as a pattern of
metaphysics it is completely different from S/O as a metaphysical pattern.
I have enjoy the discussion about reflections on MD lately. I have come to
the conclusion that prior MOQ the SOM dominated all that was understood in
reality in Western Society as clearly indicated by LILA.  But LILA did two
things, first it isolated SO metaphysics as a limited approach to
metaphysically understanding of reality.  I didn't remember Pirsig hounding
any other forms of metaphysics, he only chose one. Why was that? Perhaps
from a metaphysical standpoint there was only one beast that was 2500 year
old to slay, and Quality was Pirsig's sword. MOQ give the sword the edge and
the rest is history. The second thing it did was to provide an alternative
metaphyics separate to SOM, a new mirror as it might be understood. This
creates a new basis from which reality is understood.  If Bodvar's assertion
is correct, that SOL is intellect then MOQ is something completely
different, "a budding 5th level" as Bodvar suggests.  The problem is that
MOQ, as a more powerful form of metaphysics in my estimation, has only been
valued but such a limited amount of folks, that it's capacity to change
understanding at this point is very limited in the bigger societal picture. 

Jos: 
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. 

Mati: Agreed, again if you look for the metaphysical basis for these rules
and how we understand them, you end back at the S/O taproot. 

Jos:
Ah Saturday.....

Mati:
Yes, Ah Saturday.
Take care

> 
>