[MD] What's missing

[Magnus Berg]

Hi Bo

> First, I insist on the MOQ view/intellect view distinction, without it 
> one can't make heads or tails of anything.
>  
> Then in a MOQ view all non-intellect "world views" are non-S/O 
> (it's superfluous to say that only the social level produced such) 
> so in that sense you are right, the MOQ is not the first non-S/O 
> system. However, it is no return to THIS kind of non-S/O as you 
> know.
> 
>> I also don't agree that this is the *only* manifestation of the
>> intellectual level atop social patterns. If you broaden the definition
>> of the social level, it's possible to see other manifestations of
>> intellectual levels. 
> 
> There really exists no definition of any level other than their 
> purpose of freeing existence from the restraints of the former 
> level. And I'm afraid this is where you go astray, instead of 
> accepting MOQ's view, you look at the MOQ from intellect's S/O 
> point of view, from where you see nothing BUT societies when in 
> the "socio-" mood. And applying the "intellect out of society" 
> tenet, all kinds of intellects emerge: an inorganic intellect, a 
> biological intellect, a social intellect ...etc.      
> 
>> For some reason, you claim that this leads to
>> SOM's mind, but I fail to see the connection. SOM's mind is the S part
>> of the S/O division
> 
> If accepting the intellect=S/O, then from inside that level you get 
> an objective world that an "intellect" observes and systematizes 
> and if THIS intellect is carried over into the MOQ one gets the 
> mind-definition of the 4th. level. Isn't that clear as day? And if so 
> the MOQ is lost, instead of intellect being a sub-set of the MOQ, 
> the  MOQ becomes an intellectual pattern. With Pirsig's blessing, 
> why he did this to the MOQ is a mystery, but by now he seems 
> unable to understand - much less - correct it.
> 
>> But the "mind" you get with intellectual patterns
>> in a brain is still based on the MoQ divisions (first DQ/SQ, and then
>> SQ -> 4-levels). Perhaps you could elaborate on that one?
> 
> Well, it's this SOM/MOQ hootch-potch that makes things difficult. 
> You talk about the MOQ, but mix in a  4th level as if its patterns 
> are located in the brain (mind from matter). As we once agreed 
> on the complicated neural systems called brain made it possible 
> to to anticipate different futures (can't go in details again). This 
> biological INTELLIGENCE made the social level possible, but 
> from then on Q-evolution was no longer biological but social. 
> Then the 4th. level sprang from the 3rd. and now the 
> aforementioned INTELLIGENCE that had served biological 
> purposes and then social purposes, began to serve intellect's 
> purposes (it has in fact started to serve Quality's purposes) 
> 
> But - and here is the clue - intellect (SOM seen from the MOQ) 
> knows no Q-levels - only mind/matter - and looks into the brain to 
> find the origins of what IT calls intellect (or thoughts or mind). As 
> science this is the correct way, but as metaphysics its useless. 
> 
> Any clearer?

Yes, I now see the root of our disagreement (again...).

When you discuss the levels, you do it from a "frame of mind". I.e. you only see 
biological value for what it means to someone acting upon them, and when you 
start talking about social value, you only regard it from within the person 
thinking about them, also with the intellectual level. And if you do it that 
way, the S/O "frame of mind" naturally becomes the 4th level.

This is why you can't understand why Pirsig says that the MoQ is an intellectual 
pattern. In your view, saying that is to demote the MoQ (from some kind of 
meta-level which doesn't fit very well into the MoQ) to the 4th (your S/O) 
level, but in my view (which in this case is also Pirsig's view) the MoQ is 
simply a set of ideas (i.e. a set of intellectual patterns) that may or may not 
affect people reading about it.

That MoQ meta-level you talk about, that's the metaphysics we're discussing! And 
from within that "frame of mind" we can discuss the world around us. Doing that 
does *not* put us in some kind of higher level of being. We still use the same 
language and try to shove a handfull of intellectual patterns in each-other's 
faces now and then to see if the resulting intellectual quality event takes us 
any closer, or perhaps farther away.

If you don't see this difference of our views, or if you insist on continuing on 
using your "frame of mind" view, I'm afraid we're not coming any closer. I'm 
more interested in the lower levels, and the physical/cosmological ramifications 
of the MoQ, but your view only works for the upper levels and doesn't say much 
at all about the lower levels. That's probably why you can't see the benefits of 
my view about those lower levels.

For example, when you talk about an animal, you only think it's in its 
biological "frame of mind", always. And that may be true for the most part.
BUT! your view doesn't say anything about *why* there exist animals with more 
than one cell, neither why there exist different types of animals at all. From a 
biological point of view, a cell is all that is needed to eat and reproduce. 
Sure, DQ once in a while steps in and puts two cells together. But if only 
biological urges rule those two joined cells, what keeps them from reproducing 
separately? Because that's what biological creatures do, right? In your view, 
you simply treat this new 2-cell animal as a new animal, but there's a BIG hole 
in that reasoning. WHY DO THEY STICK TOGETHER?

You see, when you put it this way, you must see the obvious correlation between 
a bunch of cells and a bunch of animals or humans. If you don't, please explain 
how your view does it. If you can't explain it with your view, mine is simply 
better at explaining our reality and I'll continue using it.

	Magnus