[MD] Oneness, Dualism & Intellect

[skutvik at online.no]

Jos and Multitude.

On 5 March Jos wrote:
 
> Some of my points have missed their mark, (possibly owing to slack
> punctuation) 

The perfect way of editing our posts as to make it clear who's 
speaking now and before and before that ... etc. is hard to find. 

Bo before
> > 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.

I saw you treating DNA as some masterplan that in itself isn't 
biology. My point is that the MOQ does not bother with practical 
things, its "biological level", but must not be mixed with scientific 
"biology". This goes for all levels lest they would require a "DNA" 
to form and function. 

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 (thank you 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. 

This is most interesting. The futility of quasi-scientific attempts I 
agree with, the MOQ offers no explanation for (for instance) how 
life established itself and evolved on earth or wherever (other 
than it is based on carbon, but that we already knew).

Your demand for clear (dimensional) switch between the levels is 
met. You mention the biology/society border as dubious, but how 
can that be? Social value are always at odds with biological 
value. A member of a society must always give up some 
biological values to have the benefits of a society , the "twain 
never meet".

This goes for the social/intellectual relationship too, the 
intellectual values are always thwarting the social social ones. I 
wish you would provide examples of violations of this principle. 
However regarding the upper level having its origin in- and being 
dependent on the lower level is another principle but the two 
aren't mutual exclusive.    

About Pirsig "excludes secondary organizations of animals and 
machines ... etc." you must explain by giving examples. 
Regarding creating platypi of society and intellect, yes, but that is 
due to Pirsigs reluctance to accept the SOL interpretation.        

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. 

Phew! Concepts? Did not prehistoric humankind "organize 
concepts" (have language)?  Intellect is not about "concept-
organization" or "reflecting the lower levels" or "thinking about 
thinking" or any of these high-faluting things that intellect loves to 
attribute to itself, but the more mundane role the intellectual 
LEVEL gets in the MOQ context. That what is described in ZMM 
called SOM.      

> Intellectual patterns most certainly do "know" the lower
> levels as this knowing is all they are.

Intellect "knows" existence as seen through its S/O filter, that of a 
knowing subject and the known world (the latter divided into the 
various  scientific studies-logies)  the lower levels - the levels at 
all - exists only as seen from the MOQ meta-level. 

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). 

In that case bye bye MOQ, 

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.

 If the intellectual LEVEL is at work that far back the social level 
disappears and THAT level is what really sets the MOQ apart. I 
wonder why you all look high and low for ways to avoid the most 
simple and beautiful interpretation. Course I know, you havent 
moved one iota out of SOM.

Bo