[MD] irony and socrates

Wed Oct 21 00:27:49 PDT 2009

Hi Todd (John negatively mentioned :)

20 Oct. u wrote:

I had said...
> > *) This is the Q-tenet of each lower level resisting any "system"
> > above itself. Inorganic value trying its best to prevent life and so
> > on upwards.

John Carl said...
> What a negative guy you can be sometimes Bo.  The very picture of
> inorganic values grasping at death is ridiculous to me.

I'm not negative but just try to hold up the MOQ against all 
"besserwissers" who are here to grind their own "axes" hardly having 
read Pirsig's works. You can't have by this above utterance. 

> [tac] - Isn't that just the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics... That the
> universe tends toward chaos... entropy increases unless "something"
> prevents it.  

You are right Todd, I just shudder at the mentioning of that particular 
"law" that meant so much negativity for me in my younger days  when 
my focus solely was in science - physics preferably - imagining the 
universe winding down to its "heat death" when all fission- and fusion-
able matter have been  reduced to cinder and all heat evenly 
distributed to a few Kelvins. The MOQ was such a relief (and then this  
John Carl daring to call it "negative") and still is. My only concern is its 
beauty being "reduced to cinders" by nit-picking discussers who don't 
understand its very basics.  . 

> I think the "something" is DQ.  We capture the greater order that DQ
> provides in "static" levels.  It may seem that DQ increases chaos.  I
> am thinking of the tribal rebel who broke the power of the existing
> law, which increased the apparent chaos.  But, he provided a "better"
> method of dealing with the encroaching white man, which allowed the
> tribe to continue to exist within the "new" system.  His response,
> using the laws of the encroaching system, was a dynamic response to
> what he saw as a threat to the tribe.  The inflexibility of the
> existing law would crush the tribe against the unstoppable encroaching
> white man.  The net result was a constant or lower amount of chaos
> (entropy). 

I agee fully with this evaluation of the Zuñi story. According to Pirsig it 
was what put him on the trail to the Dynamic/Static divide, and that 
surely is correct, but I seem to "see" the D/S in the original 
Romantic/Classic divide, yes, this divide in some or other form 
(Instable/Stable f.ex.) is the only possibly one to replace the S/OM.

PS. At what level this takes place (that so many is preoccupied with) is 
irrelevant.  

> Personally, I think he just did what he thought/believed/felt was
> right.  I don't think he was conscious of the effect on the whole.  As
> Pirsig says, it's only 100 years later that we can see WHICH rebels are
> bringing increased value. When you are in the midst of it, it is hard
> to discern. 

Agreement and thanks

Bodvar, 

> Todd A. Carter
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
> [mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of John Carl
> Sent: Tuesday, October 20, 2009 1:07 PM To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Subject: Re: [MD] irony and socrates
> 
> >
> >
> > You still have some Q-fundamentals wrong, namely that writing and
> > reading is Q-intellectual activity  in which case the Bible or Koran
> > are "intellectual pleas" to believe in (their respective) God.
> >
> 
> I don't get this at all.  First, reading and writing can be
> intellectually patterned, or not.  It Depends.
> 
> Second, I take Christ's advice to those who make intellectual pleas to
> believe:
> 
> Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea
> and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him
> twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.  Matt. 23:15
> 
> And I note you say "respective", but they the practitioners claim its
> the same God - the God of Abraham, Moses and Isaac.
> 
> 
> >
> > There's too much yelping about "dynamic". This is something
> > frightening and awesome involved in the emergence of new levels (not
> > in the inter-level play) the last of which was the SOM-MOQ
> > transition.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> Bo, what I mean by Dynamic is not simple "change".  Everything that
> exists is held in *dynamic* tension - at the Quantum level at least. 
> And most patterns that are stable are likewise in a dynamic state that
> is relatively stable at any one moment.    On the 2nd level of
> biology, those genetic patterns which increase the dynamic are those
> which are more adaptable.   DQ is the unexplained phenomena which
> drives natural selection toward betterness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > There is some level-like relationship between the uppermost static
> > level - intellect - and the MOQ itself. Before the MOQ "intellect"
> > was SOM and hated being made a sub-set of the MOQ*)  And when
> > Phaedrus wandered beyond SOM's perimeter he was  struck down by
> > SOM-as-intellect's "immune system".
> >
> 
> 
> >
> > *) This is the Q-tenet of each lower level resisting any "system"
> > above itself. Inorganic value trying its best to prevent life and so
> > on upwards.
> >
> 
> 
> What a negative guy you can be sometimes Bo.  The very picture of
> inorganic values grasping at death is ridiculous to me.
> 
> 
> 
> >
> > Now, I wander, but I feel that  both the social and intellectual
> > levels - and the level relationship - is misunderstood - even by
> > Pirsig of LILA who at times loses sight of his own original insight
> > that SOM = intellect (there were no levels in ZAMM) and flaunts an 
> > intellect which is more like a mental compartment,.i.e. SOM's
> > "mind". OK, you don't say it here, but I use every opportunity to
> > bark up the nearest tree.
> >
> >
> The frantic barking of a dog which is trapped by a collar that it
> wants to install on everyone else.  If you can't reason your way out
> of intellect, then nobody can, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > > Holding intellect as the highest good would be "intellectualism"
> > > or "objectivism". .....
> >
> > The intellectual level is the highest and best and if you see it as
> > "objectivism" very good,  the objective attitude is better that the
> > subjective.
> 
> 
> I think Ron's insight that S/O thinking also objectifies the "self" or
> subject, needs to be kept in mind.  SOM is Objectivism.   I grant only
> DQ the label of "highest and best".  Objectivism is often the lowest
> and worst of all patterns when it tries to immorally suppress dynamic
> evolution.  The Inquisition was evil.  Hitler was evil.  The
> proponents of these systems used intellectual tools of objective
> manipulation to further their evil ends.  I don't see how you can call
> this "highest and best".
> 
> Oh wait, you think Nazism was just a social phenomena.   What a
> Babylon you encompass.
> 
> 
> 
> > ......  I agree that DQ is more important, but I disagree that it is
> > a
> > >  level above the 4th.
> >
> > Arrrgh. the "level" issue again. I said that there is a quasi level
> > relationship between intellect and the MOQ, but the MOQ must be seen
> > for what it actually is, namely the DQ/SQ Metaphysical System. It's
> > everywhere..
> >
> >
> 
> Well I definitely agree that the DQ/sq orientation is everywhere,
> working through and between the levels which are derived from it. 
> More on this said elsewhere...
> 
> 
> > BTW I am to have a show of my paintings come december and may
> > be a bit distracted these days
> >
> > Bodvar
> >
> >
> An artist who miscomprehends intellect?  Am I shocked?   Good luck on
> your show.  Make some money in a down economy.  I'm rooting for you.
> 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/
> 
> 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/
> 
> 