[MD] Unkludging the MoQ.

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Dave T. 

12 Aug. u wrote:

> I find it interesting that only the two of you failed to take a face
> value that I did indeed make an error and send a junk draft file I
> always keep in my e-mail folder to put bits and pieces of stuff in. 
> Also interesting is one says, "come back", the other, stay gone.
> Though it's evident from both of your responses to "junk" and in other
> messages that either of you credit my criticism with much value for
> either your work or Pirsig's. DMB sums it up quite nicely.

I used half my resources to unravel only this paragraph ;-)    

> While biology is dependent on both inorganic and "organic" chemistry,
> not all "organic" chemistry requires DNA as this quote and the level
> diagrams fails to make clear.  Early scientists made the same mistake
> in thinking all organic chemistry was predicated on some "life force."
> So long as the part "organic chemistry" prior to biology is understood
> to be part of the "inorganic" level  the two bottom levels are
> workable.

Pirsig went into the inorganic-biological transition at great length  
appointing the element carbon as life's building block (hardly great  
news) but gave us no clues what he saw as "carbons" for the bio-socio 
and socio-intellectual transitions. IMO he should have dropped ALL 
such pseudo-scientific stuff, the MOQ is is NOT an "expansion of 
existing knowledge" as some like to think, no Q-level really 
corresponds to the scientific categories, but leaves the scientific 
"objective" perspective completely for the moral perspective and the 
new-coined moral levels.   

> However there is not any dispute that sometime, somewhere, there was a
> transcendent leap in the quality of human animal's brain to process,
> store, and use information in ways that no other animals can. It
> doesn't really make a whole lot of difference whether it was
> biological or social event or some combination of hundreds of each the
> leap happened. And the best word candidate for that leap is
> "intellect". And by RMP law you can't have an emergent quality without
> an emergent level.

Agree, the human neocortex brain was clearly the biological "carbon" 
for the social development. The tendency to see "societies" with 
animals and even lower down is a failure to understand the MORALS 
of Q-society which is not merely banding together - animals do a lot of 
that for survival reasons - but that of rising above biology's "eat and 
proliferate" morality and it's here "traditional" morals enters existence.  
Moreover the biological-social transition is where matter changes into 
mind as many seem to believe (based on the orthodox theory how the 
MOQ subsumes SOM)      

> Now I'm going to take a "Great Leap" and guess one of the qualities of
> thought that was essential (maybe even the initial quality) for that
> "Great Leap Forward". 

The "Great Leap forward" is the social-intellectual transition ... no?   

> Visual abductive reasoning. Yep circle right back to one of the fathers
> of pragmatism dear old Charles Saunders Peirce. Do your research and
> let me know. 

OK, Peirce is the father of the  "Semiosis Metaphysics" which 
compares to the MOQ at its early "trinity" stage, it skips the S/O 
dualism and introduces a "triade reality" of a SIGN (=Quality) an 
INTERPRETER (=subject) and an OBJECT (=ditto). But as we know 
that stage did not last long for Pirsig before he shifted to the (what was 
to become) Dynamic/Static Quality. That's my research this far.

Bodvar