[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 2

[Joseph Maurer]

On 10/31/09 11:44 AM, "mark_maxwell at talktalk.net"
<mark_maxwell at talktalk.net> wrote:


<snip>
Squonk:
I¹ve provided an example of an intellectual pattern that is not a subject or
an object.
Therefore, your statement here has been challenged:
Either,
1. The intellectual level grew out of the social level and then developed
patterns that are not SOM, or
2. The relationship between the social level and the intellectual level does
not conform to the organic metaphor, Œgrew out of¹.
IMHO both these destroy your position. I happen to prefer 2. Because I feel
the process of abstraction does not conform well to a Œgrew out of¹
metaphor. I think this metaphor is employed when the term Œroots¹ is
applied, but abstraction forms a dislocation between the levels of symbols;
roots form a continuity.
If this dislocation didn¹t exist, RMP¹s insistence that the levels are
Œdiscrete¹ would be undermined.
<snip>

Hi Mark, Marsha, and all,

Mark, I feel you are making a mountain out of a molehill.  Pirsig¹s first
slice of the knife is DQ/SQ.

Evolution is only DQ.  S/O cannot be a metaphysical consideration.  Bo has
shown that S/O is the intellectual level.  DQ at the intellectual level is
L.  We are suspended in language some of which is indefinable like the
levels of evolution which are only approached by Analogy or Metaphor.

Instead of keeping the word ³social² as the level following the ³organic²
level² replace it with the word ³emotional² which describes the bond between
Father, Mother, Child the first social entity. I think you will find ³an
individual² to be DQ. The relationship between Father, Mother, Child is
equally DQ.  And the levels of evolution produce Gold.

Joe


> Squonk:
I¹ve provided an example of an intellectual pattern that is not a
> subject or an object.
Therefore, your statement here has been
> challenged:
Either,
1. The intellectual level grew out of the social level and
> then developed patterns that are not SOM, or
2. The relationship between the
> social level and the intellectual level does not conform to the organic
> metaphor, Œgrew out of¹.
IMHO both these destroy your position. I happen to
> prefer 2. Because I feel the process of abstraction does not conform well to a
> Œgrew out of¹ metaphor. I think this metaphor is employed when the term
> Œroots¹ is applied, but abstraction forms a dislocation between the levels of
> symbols; roots form a continuity.
If this dislocation didn¹t exist, RMP¹s
> insistence that the levels are Œdiscrete¹ would be undermined.