[MD] What's missing?

[skutvik at online.no]

David M (still Morey?) and Mati P-L.

19 March David wrote:

> Is it not simply that people increasingly recognise
> other values and possibilities that do not fall
> into divine or social authority. Some of these
> are related to practical values, some to pleasure
> values, some to stoic values, some to the idea
> of critical reason, some to the value of describing experience,
> then we get travel and schism, so that we need to make
> sense of divergence of belief, then we get practical values
> becoming science, and always some extension from 
> religious thought into philosophy. I say a great mix and no
> single dividing line. What starts off small grows into 
> something large and seeks its autonomy and its limits.

Very sophisticated good 'old' David, but not much can be learned 
from this. Yes,  "we get practical values becoming science, and 
always some extension from religious thought into philosophy". 
This is the Q tenet that all levels are out of the former and never 
quite free of their parent. Still, intellect is a higher value and it's 
where it diverges from social value that counts, and that is on 
countless points. One may see some rudimentary science in "star 
gazing" and/or alchemy, but modern science (it will take too long 
to list its qualities) is a world apart.       

                              -------------------


The same date Mati wrote:

> Though it is difficult to specifically narrow the birth of intellect I
> note that Pirsig is observant in his noting that intellect is
> conspicuously absent.  One favorite example is Moses freeing the Israelite
> from Pharaoh's rule.  Interestingly enough the word freedom cannot be
> found in the passages related to this time.  Why, one might ask, because
> freedom is an intellectual concept.  If one would try to go back in time
> certainly the Israelites would have wanted to be free but the concept of
> freedom was not in the cards, intellectual cards.  No they were delivered
> by God's will a social construct of that time.

General agreement, however "slavery" was a concept, thus some 
notion of freedom - at least in a biological sense (not wanting to 
be beasts of burden) must have existed. But as you correctly 
points out: If not God intervened, all was in wain.     

> One book for the interest of MD members is Karen Armstrong's "The Great
> Transformation" in which she looks at the transformation of 5 great
> societies from 2500 to about 500 B.C. in which she look at the development
> of the Axioage in which these social societies were in search of greater
> social stability in dealing with ruthless bloodletting that their
> societies encountered.  I noted in my mind this same conspicuously absent
> as well. But! One can begin to see the pre-intellectual development of
> these societies as they wrestled with their individual religious and
> social development.  But as you have ask, where is the intellectual
> "beef".  I concur that the strongest evidence is found in the Greeks and
> their development of Western Philosophy which, via Aristotle, provided the
> first metaphysical capacity to define reality beyond the social level.  

I have that book too, but never got around to finish it. Armstrong's 
"Axial Age" did not quite match MOQ's level system that I find so 
extremely useful and explains experience so well.  

> This of course brings me back to a question I believe I raised before. Why
> did Pirsig choose to attack SOM in ZMM? Was there any other metaphysical
> basis for reality to consider and dispute?  I believe it was the mother of
> all metaphysical reality and therefore the only one beast for Pheadrus to
> wrestle with.  

Yes, I have shown Pirsig's reply to my query before

    "I suspect you want to hear that what is "conspicuously 
    absent" is SOM, but I am not sure that SOM was absent 
    in early Biblical times since early social statements such 
    as "Beware of the crocodile!" or "Javeh will reward you", 
    are SOM but are not intellectual in the MOQ sense. (from 
    a letter of 2005)  

One may wonder what's the reason for down-playing SOM after 
attacking it so fiercely in ZMM? There definitely was no other 
contender around so it was a struggle for the high metaphysical 
ground. Already in LILA SOM had become a faulty intellectual 
pattern to be replaced by the better intellectual pattern - the 
MOQ.

It may be self-aggrandizement but I believe it has to do with the 
SOL interpretation. Pirsig clearly saw himself wandering into it in 
the Paul letter, but if watching out for reptiles were "social SOM" 
and (perhaps) the organism's "self-not self" immune system is  
"biological SOM" then it has lost all meaning and can't be used 
for anything - least of all intellect's value. But this is nonsense.   

> If this is true I believe that many will concede that SOM
> is an intellectual pattern.  

Everyone agree here, to most people everything - SOM, the 
MOQ, any idea - is intellect, because to them intellect=MIND. 

> As I would suggest, SOM is the taproot from
> which all intellect can be traced to.  One question that is raised is what
> other intellectual patterns that could be considered? 

Yes, finally the luxury of agreeing completely and unconditionally.


Bodvar (as I am known to you)