[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[Mati Palm-Leis]

Mark,
 
Mark 03-03-07: Hi Mati,
Again, i feel the same feeling of, 'What's the problem?'
The context you describe above is distressing and i sympathise with  you.
However, symbolic manipulation is the answer:
a. Social symbols are imitated behavioural patterns. Example: Goinf to  
church because other people do it.
b. Intellectual symbols do not stand directly for social or biological or  
inorganic patterns. They are self referencing and behave according to
rules.

Mati: With all due respect I see a lot of problems left. (And I like to
think of myself is the guy who sees the glass half full. :-) Where to start?
MOQ views values, social and intellect value levels, as "distinct" value
structures which functions are different from each other.  Now lets take an
example such as art.  We have the earliest caveman drawings in France to
modern day art.  Is all art a social value based creation or are some an
intellect based creation as well. How do you tell the difference? You are a
doctoral student who wishes to analyze the social or intellect values of
paintings.  How would you go about it?  In your analysis of the data
(paintings), what are the "rules" of analysis based on and the precepts of
MOQ that you would use? Would those rules have any inter-rater reliability,
or is it just a matter of interpretation of the individual that uses it.

Ok if Art is too nebulous, then how about literature, architecture, or lets
look at politics or policy.  We can go on and on.  Now is their any problems
that you might see from an individual who wishes to use MOQ in the world of
academia?  Remember Pirsig's claim that MOQ is a superior method of
metaphysically of seeing the world than the current SOM based methologies. I
agree that it is but preaching "symbolic manipulation" is one thing,
practice is another. Don't get me wrong I spent 2 years trying to utilize
MOQ as a superior metaphysical looking glass into the world because of my
belief in the validity of MOQ. I failed. Maybe I wasn't smart enough, but
that is what blows me away. MOQ is so simple that even child could be taught
to understand the world around him in a more clear way, yet knock on the
door of general academia, and you got your work cut out for you. For arm
chair philosophers (myself included) it is one thing, dealing with the real
world is entirely different ball of wax. 

Mark:
Once the concept of truth is worshiped in its own right language isn't  
dominated by social arte  privilages anymore, and so the intellectual level
begins to break free from  the social level: Abstract symbolic
manipulation.
Structures of all  kinds from music to poetry now have a new dimmension -
new differentiations  which begin to replace the old social differentiations
of the  Good.

Mati: I would be very careful about the idea of "worshiping" truth.
Worshiping is a social tradition not an intellect one. "Abstract symbolic
manipulation" is just that, abstract.  I would respectfully suggest that by
you definition that basic math calculations utilize "Abstract symbolic
manipulations" that have nothing to do with the social values, and yet they
have been around for along long time. Too long, well before 3000-2000 B.C.
This creates a timing problem for the advent of intellect that Pirsig has
himself has suggested that the advent occur between 1000 to 600 B.C. Enough
nit picking, but I feel the definition that both you and Pirsig have
suggested make it near to impossible to advance MOQ beyond be an interesting
metaphysical approach that has no real inherit value in society. Again I
note that overall I am a pretty optimistic guy most of the time. 

Mati