[MD] differences between MoQ and SOM

[MarshaV]

Greetings Andre,

Very nice post.  It sounds like you've worked through some 
puzzlements and have discovered workable conclusions.  But you will 
need to leave it to the others to comment.  I am not very interested 
in the four levels.  If I squint, the four levels work for me and 
that is all that is required of them.    I consider the MOQ a better 
world-view, and as such, I'm not much interested in which individual 
pattern goes into which level.  In the letter to Paul, RMP indicates 
that the Intellectual Level patterns are best "confined to the 
skilled manipulation of *abstract* *symbols that have no 
corresponding particular experience* and which behave according to 
rules of their own".  Math, physics, & logic, sounds about right to 
me.  For my own thinking pleasure I'm going to add thinking about 
patterns into the Intellectual Level.

My interest in patterns is in the nature of patterns and how they are 
identified.  For me it's the whole ball game.  I will briefly spin my 
thinking which has been heavily influenced by the Buddhist texts I've 
been reading.  I may be muddling up both Buddhism and the MOQ, but so 
be it for the moment.  I think all patterns are conceptual, period, 
end of story.  There does seem to be a correlation between the first 
two levels (inorganic & biological) and object/matter, and between 
top two levels (social & intellectual) and subject/mind.

Again all patterns are conceptual, but patterns in the inorganic and 
biological levels have phenomena as their referent.  Social and 
intellectual patterns, on the other hand, have concepts as their 
referent.  This seems totally clear to me.

Patterns are not independent entities.  They are interdependent and 
related to other patterns and ever-changing within the field of 
dynamic quality. After this I play a lot.  I wonder about naming and 
assigning value to patterns, and how that affects related patterns, 
and patterns related to those patterns.  What is the difference 
between having a good feeling associated with a pattern and having a 
bad feeling associated with a pattern, or not even noticing a 
pattern.  It's quite a little mental kaleidoscope I have 
going.  Decisions, choices, previous experiences, previous 
thoughts?  It seems I have a responsibility to pay attention.

I suppose if you have read this far, I need to thank you for your attention.

I hope the others are better able to offer you comments.


Marsha





>Marsha!
>
>Thanks a million for the full transcript of the letter from Pirsig to Paul
>Turner, because ,in it there are some things that have been bugging me about
>the Intellectual level since reading ZMM, Lila, Lila's Child (still haven't
>finished) including Bodvar's SOL argument and previous posts.
>As I understand it, this level (to use Bodvar's term) has been a "weakness"
>within the MoQ and has been bothering many people since its introduction,
>not least because Pirsig is seen as not being very 'conclusive ' about the
>issue. In other words he doesn't really want to commit himself to 'clarify
>and define' i.e. set boundaries. Okay, be that as it may.
>
>Bear with me please, I am a simple pattern of values, not well versed in
>philosophy nor metaphysics. If I do commit 'logical errors' or
>'misinterpretations' at least try to follow the 'spirit' of what my feelings
>are, transformed and objectified by the inevitable use of language.
>
>There is a problem with what constitutes the 'Intellectual level'. In other
>words...what is included and what is excluded. What type of human activity
>can properly be 'classified' as 'intellectual' level activity?
>
>Pirsig is very 'clear' about this:
>
>"When getting into a definition of the intellectual level much clarity can
>be gained by recognising a parallel with the lower levels. Just as every
>biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic patterns are
>biological..., so every intellectual level pattern is social although not
>all social patterns are intellectual".
>
>But, as Pirsig argues, to avoid broadening the intellectual level "to a
>point where it is losing all its meaning" it has to be "cut off somewhere,
>and it seems to me the greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual
>level if it is confined to the skilled manipulation of *abstract* *symbols
>that have no corresponding particular experience* and which behave according
>to rules of their own". ( Letter to Paul Turner, Sept.2003).
>
>I have been able to lay my hands on a dictionary (Longman): the word
>'abstract' of course has many meanings but Pirsig has pointed the way to
>which meaning is meant and this is : 'existing only as an idea or quality
>rather than as something real that you can see or touch'.
>
>Now, lets start at the start( and this may be tedious for some but for me it
>is essential): (1) If language is not recognised as a ' tool' that makes
>(not so much creation) but continuation and 'binding of social patterns of
>value possible I don't know what is. But , as we all know, this process of
>uttering sounds.... this language also
>(2) allows/ permits/ provides the means for us to abstract ie take on a
>'meta-position'...i.e.reflect on our activities and on our thoughts( and
>reflect on these again) in other words it makes abstraction possible.
>
>Language, by general agreement in the MoQ discussions is a social pattern of
>value. It belongs at the social level.
>
>This is where the 'weakness, confusion' starts, I am suggesting that it is
>more than a Static PoV because it is also an inherent part of the
>Intellectual PoV.
>Language makes communication/ transmission of meaning possible and it
>is also our only 'tool' to make sense of our abstractions. They are
>inextricably interwoven with eachother.
>
>So now I will do some backtracking:
>
>In previous posts( re: Commie Talk and USA bashing)  I argued that
>governments are social PoV's and that therefore place what they do, what
>they talk about, how they plan how they use collected taxes and distribute
>these, making plans about infrastructures,education,welfare,science,
>research,conservarion,sustainability, the economy etc, deciding on policies
>for all these etc ,at the social level.
>
>Now, it was pointed out that: No Andre...these truly belong at the
>intellectual level! Thinking about the economy is a science therefore
>intellectual etc etc. The problem is.. I am still confused and least of all
>convinced.
>
>I am talking to my neighbour about the flowers she grows in her garden...are
>we intellectualising? If I record this conversatuon in a book and publish it
>does it belong to the static level of intellectual value?
>
>For weeks and weeks I have listened to the parliamentary debates of the
>Federal Govt. in Australia. Absolutely brilliant! It was verbal
>masturbation at the highest quality, Paul Keating at his best...and all
>recorded in Hansard to be placed in the libraries. Are they intellectual
>patterns of value?? They probably are.
>
>And this lies at the heart of the confusion and to be honest, Pirsig is like
>a Zen master's guide...by allusion, hint, whip, stick, koan etc. Work it out
>yourself!!
>
>But this is not how to 'sell' the MoQ to your friends, family, interested
>people ( or maybe it is?)
>
>My suggestion/ resolution to this 'tension' within MoQ is to put
>forward  that "intellectualising" about those patterns that correspond to
>particular experience are social patterns of thinking. Put more formally
>they are Social Level static patterns of Thinking) SLT's .
>
>SLT's refer to that thinking based  and immersed in inorganic, organic and
>social PoV's (and all their possible interactions).
>They do refer to these PoV's because they are, in the sense of the
>definition given, as real as you and me. In our everyday lives we are
>continuously communicating within and about these patterns.
>
>This "division" will clear up a whole heap of 'garbage' from the
>intellectual level! It will separate the SLT level of thinking from true
>intellectual PoV's. ( Am I becoming elitist?)
>
>By suggesting this I am saying that the intellectual level needs to be
>recognised as truly becoming a guiding, dynamic force informing SLT"s. I
>think in this sense the MoQ has a lot to guide and inform. But here is also
>a problem to which I will return later.
>
>
>
>A cook-book as a static pattern of intellectual value on a par with e.g. the
>theory of relativity? No, given this division, the cook-book clearly belongs
>to the SLT pattern of value. I would not even want to call it a 'low pattern
>of intellectual value' because according to the definition and guideline by
>Pirsig  this type of intellectual activity is firmly grounded in biological
>patterns which is a lower level of (intellectual) morality. And if it is
>used by the chef to attract customers to his restaurant it becomes part of
>the Biological/Social PoV's.
>
>This is why I dared to suggest that some CEO's/ managers/ players of the
>financial markets, etc, have an ?LT : all that is motivating them comes from
>greed and nothing else. ( in this example a "BLT" i.e. biological level of
>thinking).
>
>Does Lila have quality? Biologically she does, socially she's pretty low on
>the scale and as an intellectual she is nowhere.
>
>Given this division, 'intellectual' social programmes such as capitalism and
>the free market, socialism, communism, the New Deal etc because they are
>firmly engaged in the "manipulation" of 'real' experiences belong to SL'T.
>And this is the same for 'freedom of speech, trial by jury, etc.
>We really need to re-think the "relationship" between the social and
>intellectual levels.
>
>I think that the concept of SLT may assist in 'separating' the levels as
>well as clarifying them.
>
>My own, limited understanding of the creation of this "intellectual level'
>confusion is because Pirsig, after having firmly done away with with SOM in
>ZMM reintroduced them in Lila, wherein the MoQ came to fruition. I do not
>understand his motivation but it weakened his gains.Why split the 4 levels
>into objective and subjective?!! He should not have done that!
>
>  In/Organic and Soc/ Int are not the S/O division. But then again, did he
>need the S/O to reach MoQ? Of course!! You have to start somewhere!
>
>The strenght of the MoQ is that it has placed itself at the level of "static
>intellectual pattern of value". Is a book on gardening also a static
>intellectual pattern of value? Maybe it is...each to his/her own patterns
>and fulfilment of these. (This gives an interesting angle on Marx's notion :
>to each according to their need, from each according to their abilities).
>
>Pirsig made a curious statement in Lila on page 203: "The intelligence of
>the mind can't think of any reason to live...".
>
>Maybe he is right but I hope not. Our thinking is made possible and is
>inextricably connected with all its 'lower' levels.
>I cannot think of a reason not to live but...maybe I do not understand. Have
>we "invaded" ( Lila pp204-5)??
>
>The intellectual level is based upon/ made possible through its parent SLT
>level. It is the moral responsibility of Int. PoV's to guide, challenge,
>contradict and force SLT into ever expanding levels of  resposibility
>towards its parents, grand parents and great grand parents ( i.e. social,
>organic and inorganic patterns of value).
>
>Maybe some of you find this a load of rubbish. Maybe it will set some people
>thinking. If it is rubbish and I am on the wrong wavelenght...fine then I am
>in the wrong world.
>I hope this will stimulate the discussion beyond the level of arguing and
>justifying a cut in personal income taxes! And without wanting to put to a
>too  fine a point on it we need to clean up the intellectual level...with
>the aid of the MoQ or any other idea that keeps the road open to being
>receptive to DQ. I have grabbed this thing by the balls and I want to keep
>squeezing until it really becomes unbearable.
>We need to learn from ever higher evolving forms of comprehension and
>communicating and translating these into ever higher evolving forms of
>awareness.
>This also has implications for where we put what. I am not suggesting I know
>all the answers.
>At present I am simply too tired to suggest a rearrangement of patterns in a
>better way. I just hope that these ideas have sparked something.
>Wan an ( good night)
>Andre
>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/

.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.