[MD] The Quest for Quality

[Ham Priday]

Hi Bo --


> Objective approach to knowledge? I would say that "knowledge" is the
> objective (scientific) approach, but OK.

Yes, that is a more logical definition.  I stand corrrected.  (Where I 
understand you, your propositions are well constructed.  It's those 
propositions of yours I don't understand that are frustrating.  But I 
suppose that's to be expected.)

[Bo before]:
> Science is the essence of the intellectual level, that of a human
> mind exploring a physical universe. Philosophy on the other hand
> believes itself to be above science, but is firmly based on the same
> S/O-intellectual outlook. This includes your own Essence, and
> Pirsig's Quality as essence with the MOQ a theoretical ordering.
>The true MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide, this is the metaphysical
>equivalent to Newton's physical revolution.

[Ham]:
> "Essence of the intellectual level" is meaningless to me as a
> definition of Science.  If you mean that experiential knowledge is the
> goal of Science, I agree.  Scientific methodology is the logical
> approach to understanding physical reality.

[Bo]:
> Your refusal to look through the MOQ "glasses" makes it difficult.
> Anyway, intellect is the distinction between a reality out there and a
> mind in here, but as the level grew more complex and the apparatus to
> test its conclusions  got more sophisticated, paradoxes proliferated,
> the latest demonstrated by Quantum Physics.
>
> The distinction between a (physical) reality and an observing subject
> first paradox is that one of these must be primary - the source of the
> other (the materialist/ idealist quarrel). This has gone on since time
> immemorial and is  what the MOQ reveals as futile because it stems
> from the S/O distinction being static. Your "essence" belongs to the
> idealist camp.

Terminology does affect one's understanding of a concept.  One of the 
problems here is that you are using "intellect" to represent what I call 
"experience".  To me intellection is the process of organizing sensory data 
into a structured whole - experiential existence.  Thus, I would say, 
"Experience is [how we distinguish, intellectualize] a reality out there 
from a mind in here."   I won't quarrel with your assertion that Essence 
"belongs to the idealist camp" if you'll agree that Pirsig's Quality also 
falls into this camp.

[Ham]:
> How does a "new insight come along" and where does it come from?
> The MoQist would say that it comes from Quality, or is a pattern of
> DQ.

[Bo]:
> A new INTELLECTUAL insight (like Newton's) comes along by
> intellects premises being manipulated by intelligence's logical gates.

I don't understand what you mean by "intellect's premises".  Are they mental 
constructs of cognizant awareness or patterns of an extracorporeal quality? 
Why aren't "intelligence's logical gates" intellect itself?   You seem to be 
treating intellect as a property or function of the objective universe 
rather than the subjective individual.  This is a Pirsigianism that is 
incomprehensible to me.

[Ham before]:
> I believe that the value-sensibility which constructs the universe as a
> relational system also commands the intellect to realize its order and
> cogency as  "insight".  Neither the value that is sensed nor the
> awareness that senses it is an "existent".  All insight is proprietary
> to the individual observer.  And that includes the appearance of
> physical phenomena (i.e., experiential reality).

[Bo]:
> An animal may have an "insight" about new ways to get food, but this
> is not intellect and you can't call it (the ways) proprietary to a crow 
> (for
> instance) there is not individuality (subjectivity) at the biological 
> level.
> All this value-talk belongs to MOQ's "meta-level"

To the extent that a crow can be said to have "insight" it is the crow's 
proprietary awareness.  What draws the crow to a food source is that it 
needs food to survive and knows where to find it.  The need to survive may 
be instinctual, but the location of the source is known only to the crow. 
I don't see how animal behavior can be understood any other way.

[Ham]:
> Now let me turn the tables and ask you a fundamental question:
> Do you believe that this ordered universe, "the metaphysical
> equivalent to Newton's physical revolution", exists independently of
> its realization by the cognizant mind?
> In other words, can a universe exist without sensible awareness?

[Bo]:
> The MOQ does not exist independently of SOM, this had to be
> achieved before the total picture could be seen. SOM is the distinction
> between a cognizant mind and a non-cognizant world so in that sense
> "a cognizant mind" is necessary (at least) for a material universe.
> However in a MOQ retrospect the mind/matter distinction is itself a Q-
> development (its 4th. level)  so in the total picture - no - the Quality-
> ordered universe is not dependent on a mind. It HAS neither mind nor
> matter except as an aggregate.

By "a Q-development" do you mean that Quality acts as an external force to 
infuse or empower the individual with intellect?  If so, to what extent does 
this Q factor create the individuals' thoughts, ideas, feelings, and 
decisions?  And if the individual is externally manipulated in this manner, 
how can he be a free creature?   That's a fundamental problem for me, Bo.

> Listen, the MOQ postulates that the intellectual level creates (your)
> cocksureness that only a mind can make a physical universe become
> existent. The social level is/was not aware of any such distinction.
> There were (is for people still at that level) it) no mind that perceived 
> a
> physical reality, rather everything was guided by forces that permeated
> the world. These could be manipulated by correctly performed rituals
> (a remnant is religious prayers and sacraments). Intellect looks down
> on this as ignorance or superstition, but the MOQ brings intellect a peg
> down too.
>
> Can we be more fundamental?

We cannot be more fundamentally wrong.

Thanks, Bo
Ham