[MD] British Emergentism

[skutvik at online.no]

Greetings Marsha 

21 Nov.you wrote (to Andrè)

> I very much agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level is comprised of
> subject/object patterns, and I agree that there should be an emerging
> Quality Level above the Intellectual Level.  

Good. Not because of us forming a faction, but because that is the 
only possible interpretation of the 4th. level that makes sense. 
Regarding the MOQ as a "level" it follows from not being (able to be) 
part of intellect because it (intellect) is part of the MOQ.

> I believe the Quality Level represents a paradigm shift as large as the
> shift from social patterns to intellectual patterns. 

Right you are! There is a level-like relationship between the highest 
static good and the "system" that casts it in that role. By Goodness, it 
is not every day a new world order is born and some birth 
pain/difficulties will be encountered. You are a promising "midwife" ;-)  

> Actually, I think it was modesty that prevented RMP from adding this
> new level.  

Wish it was, but I believe intellect's immune apparatus struck at him  
upon his discovery of its (intellect's) SOM quality and that he backed 
down (on this most crucial - SOM = intellect - point to re-gain his 
sanity. What nonplusses me is that it was the post-hospital Pirsig who 
wrote ZAMM.    

> But I also think the MoQ is an intellectual static pattern of value,
> while what it points to is Quality: Dyanmic and static, or as I like to
> say, unpatterned experience and patterned experience. 

If we stay with the "birth" analogy, the MOQ was conceived in SOM's 
womb, but presses on to be born as a separate entity, in MOQ's own 
vocabulary it is an unruly pattern yet toed its line. Phaedrus  delivered 
a "paper" to his colleagues (if quality was subjective or objective) and  
but by and by the greater context dawned on him. Your "points to" 
part I have reservations about, it smacks of a Quality "out there" that 
the MOQ "in here" is ONE possible rendering of, but as you say below 
...... we may not agree with all our respective interpretations.     

> It puzzles me why everyone doesn't see it, because it seems so obvious
> to me. It's like the differnece between Newtonian physics and Quantum
> physics, a quantum leap.  Bo may not agree with all my MoQ
> interpretations, nor I agree with all his, but I did want to state on
> these two point I definitaly agree with Bo. 

Quantum leap, you bet.

Bodvar












> 
> 
> Marsha
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Andre
> Broersen Sent: Saturday, November 21, 2009 12:19 PM To:
> moq_discuss at moqtalk.org Subject: Re: [MD] British Emergentism
> 
> Bodvar:
> Platt, Andre, All
> 
> 20 Nov:
> 
> Platt:
> > To be precise, all concepts such as "time" and explanatory
> > dimensions" are intellectual PoV. Which brings to mind Bo's idea
> > that the MOQ is transconceptual and therefore timeless, which fits
> > with Quality being outside definition. Maybe we're getting somewhere
> > after all.
> 
> Many of the issues raised has been discussed before (and consensus
> arrived at?) and resides somewhere in the archives.
> 
> Andre:
> You are correct Bodvar, in stating that the intellectual level and
> your SOL have been raised over and over again, over a period of more
> than 10 years now...though to state/ask about consensus being arrived
> at I am not so sure. I have been diving in the archives over the past
> few weeks and there isn't any agreement that I could find.
> 
> More learned fellows and women than me have stated their views and who
> am I to add anything new to either challenge or confirm? Perhaps it is
> better to leave the question regarding the 'mysteries' of the
> intellectual level hanging (so to speak) as a continued tension
> between DQ/SQ.
> 
> Perhaps this is a cop-out on my part but I do not intend it that way.
> 
> As said before, Mr.Pirsig has let his views be known. I wish to remain
> neutral in this matter. It does tend to take up a lot of energy better
> spent on other things.
> 
> Questions remain and answers fly right over my head sometimes. E.g why
> can the MoQ not be an intellectual PoV, as Pirsig maintains it is?
> 
> Is intuition an intellectual PoV? How is Quality excluded from the MoQ
> if the MoQ is an intellectual PoV?
> 
> Anyway, I do not know where this will end up but am sure where I will
> end up. And it is not in the percolator.
> 
> Perhaps another level is required. Pirsig has stated not to have
> objections to this but he still feels that the four 'levels' are
> sufficient plus the Code. I highly respect this stance.
> 
> Regards
> 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/
> 
> 
>