[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Jos and Mati.

On 3 Mar. Laycock, Jos wrote:

> 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.

First of all welcome to Mati, I see that that your entry has 
spawned several responses, but being busy trying to answer 
Marsha's questions I haven't really studied the various Re-s, but 
this from Jos - addressed to me too - is an opportunity to join.
    
Mati's "understanding beyond experience" may be a little - um - 
intellectual (but I don't think that was his point) There hasn't been 
a time that humankind did not "understand" (explain) experience, 
but these explanations only became "beyond experience" with the 
4th. level from where about everything is subjective theories 
beyond the alleged objective reality. 

Jos' "....the 'understood' is the static patterns that you 
analyze...etc" doesn't really escape the 4th. level's tentacles. 
Here DQ becomes the subject and the SQ the object, while the 
S/O is totally left in the MOQ ... except as its intellectual level!! 
Intellect is the place for all normal activities except to survey the 
overall metaphysical picture.    

> 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.

Agree with Mati, no level is really defined by Pirsig in a formal 
way, but the values he lists are clear enough, and I have always 
pointed to (his) intellectual values as invariably S/O. 

Jos' point about DNA being "on top of the purely biological
layer of values." is irrelevant, there may be countless such 
problems but the MOQ has no business describing how biological 
evolution works. There are no pure biological layers that DNA 
manipulates. Organisms and what makes up organisms ARE 
biological values, the same way that atoms are inorganic value, 
not matter bits reacting to inorganic values by some 
"mechanisms".   

> 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. 

Magnus talked about axes and and/or the levels as "dimensions" 
with what I agree, but he very much agree with my "increasing 
complexity" development rather than static betterment inside 
each level. 

> Using this
> model, we should in my view re-define the levels entirely according to
> fundamental existential shifts

Fundamental existential shifts? Doesn't those correspond to the 
static level 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.    

Hmmm. Jos is obviously preoccupied with biology, but agin the 
MOQ is no tool for science in their job to categorize things, its 
business is the big metaphysical picture and here it makes a 
marvelous job. 

> 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'm happy to join this agreement, perhaps we may return to the 
said letter.

> > 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. 

The above, good.

> > 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. 

The dubious part of this may be me not fully understanding, but 
do you say SOL and means SOM? I would have liked it to say  
"we see the DQ/SQ (MOQ) as an intellectual pattern and (thus) 
ask SOM to provide a definition ..(snip) ..SOM is the static 
intellectual level." It sounds Jesuitic, but we can't allow the 
slightest part of the 4th level to escape the S/O template unless 
we have the dreaded MIND on our hands.

The "SOL" indicates the SOM=intellect interpretation of the 
MOQ. There is no "SOL" 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. 

Ah! this enlightened me as to Mati's above. He means that SOM 
only deals with intellect's static quality, but that there is a dynamic 
component, but here I agree with Jos, the dynamics is not a point 
in discussing the static aspect.  

> 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. 

OK I believe I agree ;-)

> 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. 

Yes, yes, understanding with the caveat of "this is a mere 
subjective understanding of an objective reality" is a splendid 
variety of the many ways to describe intellect's S/O value.   

> 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. 

I would have liked Jos to stick to intellect as a static level. 
Intellect knows no social, biological or inorganic LEVELS, this is 
only seen from the MOQ. Intellect's treats things with its science 
tools as the sociology, biology and physics respectively.  . 

> 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. 

Perfect! And "Bovver" is a possible new alias :-) 

> 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)

You too my son Jos?  Were the Greek mythology - as a system - 
an intellectual pattern? Or whatever ancient "system"? This 
makes nil and void of the social/intellectual distinction.
 
> 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. 

Well yes, but why make it so complicated. Intellect treats reality 
according to rationality. There may be the idealists that says all is 
subjective but they argue rationally. The said mythological age 
never used this intellectual approach.      

> These
> logical rules approximate to subject/object awareness if the culture
> upon which the pattern is written already takes that view.

If the culture is social-value steeped, intellect has no power, that's 
plain.

IMO

Bovver