[MD] Forget about Empiricism, no thanks.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Joe

17 Oct. you spoke:

> IMO You do not explore fully Pirsig s explanation of evolution. He
> discusses the dynamic breakthrough from inorganic to organic. Within
> the organic he mentions a dynamic breakthrough between one cell
> reproduction and reproduction by a cell wall being penetrated by
> another cell.

You raise the most intriguing issues ;-(). I don't feel comfortably 
with ascribing the evolution within the static levels to DQ. A 
metaphor: Water waves are water too, but it's their wave quality 
(their NOT being water) we mean by calling them waves. 
Likewise it's the static patterns' STABILITY that characterizes 
them. 

The dynamic jump is between the levels, unless this is observed 
each and every biological "breakthrough" becomes a mini-level 
inside biology with the inter-levels moral struggle and no such 
exists within biology. Course dog eats dog and such but that's not 
what the MOQ speaks about. This your idea would make it 
completely unwieldy.

> He can not put any limit on a dq/sq development from the
> dynamic side. He puts no limit on the destruction of a level, some
> have come and some have gone. His statement of an intellectual pattern
> that "improves" upon the MOQ is consistent with undefined dq. 

I know that Pirsig speaks of a dynamism within level, but IMO he 
(as said) complicates the MOQ unduly here. F. ex. the DQ jump 
between the inorganic level and the biological laid down the 
premises for the following evolution, the mammal organism is 
potentially in the bacterium - that way Darwin's theory works - 
what the MOQ adds is an explanation for the start of life which is 
plain impossible inside the SOM.      

Destruction of levels!? What levels have come and gone? You 
mean patterns?

And "improvements upon the MOQ"? If you mean things like we 
discuss, that this or that statement may be wrong and/or the 
levels may be understood differently, I agree, but anything that 
says that the metaphysical layout is different from the DQ/SQ will 
annihilate the MOQ and if so - as said - "intellect" is no longer a 
static value level but good old mind.    

> He is not clear on the dynamic point at which the social level evolves
> to the intellectual level. IMO that point is the start of a new branch
> of evolution the evolution of consciousness. 

He was wonderfully clear in ZAMM about the emergence of SOM 
and it's clear from much of LILA that intellect=S/O (minus 'M') but 
then somehow this sounded too radical and he made intellect into 
something that no-one understands - or worse -  interprets as 
"thinking" or "consciousness" or "mind" and has caused all this 
confusion.   

The humans of old (the social era) were exactly the same as 
today, their consciousness just as acute, but only conscious of 
social values and not of intellectual (S/O) values. As I have said 
a million times it's possible to make different metaphysics built on 
other grand concepts (those that don't fit the S/O matrix) and a 
metaphysics of consciousness MOC is feasible: DC/SC, static 
inorganic consciousness, biological consciousness ...etc. But 
Value is most valuable ;-) 

> In consciousness two are
> recognized. The relationship between them is seen as law e.g. the law
> of gravity. The law of gravity belongs in the intellectual level not
> the social level of consciousness. 

Here you ARE inside a MOC speaking about intellectual - and 
social levels of consciousness, but it adds nothing to the MOQ  
The law of gravity definitely belongs at the intellectual level, yet 
apples fell - still falls - at the inorganic level.

> Enlightenment is a further dynamic breakthrough into a higher social
> level, and a higher intellectual level well within the parameters of
> MOQ DQ/SQ evolution. 

Enlightenment a higher social level. Joe you say the most 
strange things. It was a milepost in intellects march to power from 
its Medieval hibernation, the  DYNAMIC breakthrough were the 
Greek thinkers' tearing existence lose from the social - 
mythological - explanation of reality. There may have been other 
philosophers than our books list, the known ones operated 
between 400-250 BC approx and at that time the 
mythological/social  grip had long since loosened its hold, but 
never mind.     

A new intellectual level? You mean a new intellectual pattern? 
Sure, but I can't for the life of me see one that breaks with 
intellect's S/O master-pattern and still be intellect. The MOQ did 
just that and thus was forced to  "leave home" to form a new 
metaphysics wherein its old home SOM became a sub-set of its 
own. Future radical new patterns will  be Q-patterns and they can 
by definition not contradict the MOQ.

Nice talking to you Joe, you at least talk MOQ.

Bo