[MD] MOQ/BOC

[skutvik at online.no]

Dan, Arlo, All.

13 Aug.:

Arlo had said
> I went back and pulled this quote and it does appear to me you got the
> social-intellectual thing reversed. Here is what Pirsig said. "Just as
> every biological pattern is also inorganic, but not all inorganic
> patterns are biological; and just as every social level is also
> biological, although not all biological patterns are social; so every
> intellectual pattern is social although not all social patterns are
> intellectual." Your analogy had the opposite, "every social pattern is
> an intellectual pattern  but not all intellectual patterns are
> social." 

(An aside: Like modern art where pictures can be turned any way and 
no-one is any wiser) 

What the MOQ says, but the latter-day Pirsig manages to mangle, is 
that each upper level is an added-value on top of ALL lower value 
levels. 

> so every intellectual pattern is social although not all social
> patterns are intellectual."    

NO intellectual pattern is social, but intellect sits on top of all levels and 
none can be removed lest the whole edifice collapses. This is how the 
MOQ sees it, the levels sees no Q- or Q-level context, intellect 
despises "the ignorant past" and society hates "modernism".  

Dan: 
> Yes you're right. I should have pulled up the quote instead of relying
> on memory. But my question still stands: If social patterns are not
> intellectual, how do we discriminate them from other patterns? As I
> said, I am confused. Are they hard-wired into our nature? 

When your focus is on the static levels no discrimination is necessary, 
as an amoeba knows its biological ways and your biological 
component does likewise ... and so on. Only from the MOQ is any 
level discrimination possible and only with intellect=SOM can society's 
and intellect's relationship be understood. 

"Hard-wired" and "our nature"?????????????

Bodvar