[MD] Forget about Empiricism, no thanks.
Joseph Maurer
jhmau at sbcglobal.net
Thu Oct 18 14:36:15 PDT 2007
On Thurs 18 October 2007 11:05:45 Bo writes to Joe
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.
[Bo]
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.
[Joe]
IMO your are using the word "dynamic" as an idealist. Within an order
idealism is fine. That is how we talk about things from our proprietary
awareness, the other. Between orders mystic understanding embodies
our knowledge of order. Pirsig does not discuss a law of order, and
leaves himself open to "practical idealism", as you describe the "dynamic jump".
As an amateur singer I am aware of the musical octave. The light ray
seems to be divided into colors. Using these as examples esoteric literature
describes a law of seven. The movement from Do to Re is a dynamic
order of consciousness by analogy. It has direction. Is there a cosmic octave?
Yes! Is there a conscious octave? Yes! The order is dynamic.
To place an individual in a dynamic order 3 things are necessary.
The pattern and its negation are supported in their place in the order
through awareness- the social order. I don’t know if Ham sees it this way,
but he uses a lot of the same words. I am empty! Pirsig does not explore
this, but his use of the word "dynamic" indicates undefined order. His use of the
word "static" is an individual within a manifest order. This is how I see DQ/SQ.
> 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.
[Bo]
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?
[Joe]
Pirsig emphasizes that Individuals have to static-latch, to continue the dynamic
development. He describes evolution in this way as static latching.
IMO it is easier to see a dual course of evolution. What is possible in
organic evolution is not always possible in conscious evolution. E.g.
hominids evolving to Homo sapiens. The dynamic development came at the
wrong time (immature latching within the order).
[Bo]
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.
[Joe]
Well Said!
> 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 ;-)
[Joe]
IMO the highest social value is I am alone! A level for law evolves,
the intellectual level for direction. A law of seven–MODQ, Order.
A law of three-- MOSQ, Manifestation. One does not deny the other.
> 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.
[Joe]
MOQ is confusing as DQ/SQ since Q covers DQ and SQ.
E.G., The periodic table of elements is outside the MOSQ in differentiation!
Its all the same gravity. In the MOSQ it is useful but incomplete.
> 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.
[Bo]
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.
[Joe]
IMO LILA was written from a higher social level, asking us
to look at each other! It can’t hurt!
[Bo]
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.
[Joe]
A new intellectual level? I hope ??????????????????
???????????? are not to go out of style!
Nice talking to you Joe, you at least talk MOQ.
Bo
Thanks, Bo, right back atcha!
Joe
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
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/
More information about the Moq_Discuss
mailing list