[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[Laycock, Jos (OSPT)]

Hi Bo, Mati,

Some of my points have missed their mark, (possibly owing to slack punctuation) embedded are some clarifications along with the odd fresh bit: 
>  
> > Jos the other day:
> > Not convinced. Wherever there is an organising static 
> pattern that is
> > not itself of biological matter but defines the arrangement 
> of 

(Insert 5th March)
Organised groups of!
    
> > plants, animals, machines etc (anything but humans), it defies the 
> definitions
> > of the levels set down by Pirsig. Clearly the pattern

(Insert 5th March)
That is the organisation of the group!

 does not
> > "contain DNA" but clearly it 

(Insert 5th March)
(said organising pattern), 

lies on top of the purely biological
> > layer of values. Is it social? Not according to Pirsig.
> 

Bodvar:
> 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,

Jos 5th March:
Arghh! Complete misinterpretation! Please re-read the above paragraph being carefull to see "the pattern" as the subject of the sentence! (Said pattern would be one that defined the ordered movement say of a flock of birds).
What follows is not therefore any argument against me.

Bo:
 there may be countless such 
> problems but the MOQ has no business describing how biological 
> evolution works.

Jos 5th March
I agree!??!!!

Bo:
 There are no pure biological layers that DNA 
> manipulates.

Jos 5th March
Well duh!??!

Bo:
 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".   
> 

Jos the other day:
> > 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. 
> 
Bo:
> 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. 
> 

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

Bo:
> Fundamental existential shifts? Doesn't those correspond to the 
> static level shifts?
> 

Jos the other day:
> > 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.    
> 

Bo:
> 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. 
> 

Jos 5th March:
No he isn't! Please read again in light of earlier clarification. My whole point is that the quasi scientific attempt to classify static entities by level only has any meaning if there are fundamental dimensional differences (thakyou Magnus) between levels. We cannot establish a clear difference between intellectual and social patterns if we cannot also see a clear fundamental switch from biological to social. Pirsig specifically excludes secondary organisations of animals or machines from his social level descriptions (Lila's Child annotations), and this seems to create a platypus of these patterns. 

> > 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 the other day:
> > 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. 
>

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

Mati:
> > > 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. 

Bo:
> The above, good.

Mati:
> > > 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. 

Bo:
> 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 the other day:
> > 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. 
> 
Bo:
> 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.  
> 

Jos the other day:
> > 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. 
> 

Bo:
> OK I believe I agree ;-)

Jos 5th March:
Did you folks just skip maths classes in school?

Jos the other day:
> > 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. 
 
Bo:
> 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.   
> 

Jos the other day:
> > 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. 
> 
Bo:
> 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. 

Jos 5th March: 
I think this will be our point of real disagreement then, the category can be broad but still specific. I would say that intellect's organisation of concepts can only occurr where there are concepts to organise. Intellectual patterns most certainly do "know" the lower levels as this knowing is all they are.
> 
> > 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. 
> 

Bov:
> Perfect! And "Bovver" is a possible new alias :-) 
> 
> > Jos the other day:
> > 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)
> 
Bov:
> 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.

Jos 5th March:
Ok I'll just say it; Yes, alegories myths and stories are all best classified as intellectual patterns. (I'll just cower quietly here whilst people throw copies of ZMM at me).
>  
Jos the other day:
> > 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. 
> 
Bov:
> 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.      

Jos 5th March;
Because really its simpler this way, not more complex. The implied rule has more in it, but its application becomes universal rather than having to worry about exceptions all over the place.
The mythological age didn't use "this" intellectual approach, it used a different intellectual approach of lower quality.
> 

Jos the other day:
> > These
> > logical rules approximate to subject/object awareness if the culture
> > upon which the pattern is written already takes that view.
> 
Bov:
> If the culture is social-value steeped, intellect has no 
> power, that's 
> plain.

Jos 5th March;
Yup, agree absolutely
> 
> IMO
> 
> Bovver
> 
Jos 5th march:
Now  my attempt to quell fears of the return of SOM:

Mati: Again rationality at it's taproot I believe we are lead back to the
SOM.
and:
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 5th March:

I agree that there is an implied dualism at play here in which we have static patterns of intellect that are not the same as thinking, and yes in some sense this can be seen as a "mind" that is seperate from a "material" idea. 
But the "mind" category has become diappearingly narrrow (from a SOM perspective) as it is solely the evaluative moment of pure experience, it doesn't include any "understanding" (from my earlier usage) everything else is a static pattern, an idea. 
This can't be the same as SOM as although dualistic it is applied entirely to a traditionaly non material setting. There is no mind vs matter, only dynamic thought vs static thought and this is absoutely compatible with the rest of the MOQ.

Urghh meetings to attend, compliance controls to submit.........

Best Regards

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 (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 (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