[MD] A larger system of understanding

[Platt Holden]

Hi Magnus,

Thanks for a quick response. A couple of comments below.

On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Magnus Berg <McMagnus at home.se> wrote:

> Platt and all
>
>
> On 2010-07-08 18:21, plattholden at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> At the risk of beating a dead horse and getting banned I offer the
>> following
>> Pirsig quote as further evidence that including the MOQ in the
>> intellectual
>> level doesn't make sense.
>>
>> "The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between intellect
>> and
>> society, subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of them in
>> a
>> larger system of understanding. Objects are inorganic and biological
>> values;
>> subjects are social and intellectual values." (Lila, 24)
>>
>> Perhaps someone can explain, if the MOQ is a set of subjective
>> intellectual
>> values how it can see itself as a set of subjective system of values --
>>  the
>> problem an eye seeing itself.
>>
>
> Yes, I can, and I have numerous times, but here we go again.
>
> Intellectual patterns can refer to any other pattern, including
> intellectual patterns and including itself.
>

[Platt]
Yes they can. But in doing so often create paradox. Ex: "This is not an
intellectual pattern."
 Moreover, any intellectual proposition about reality must fall into the
following four categories:*

1. Reality is absolute Being
2. Reality is Non-being
3. Reality is both Being and Non-Being
4. Reality is neither Being nor Non-Being

Any one of these propositions that claims to embrace reality must exclude
another, thus limiting its embrace and falling into self-contradiction.
 *("The Spectrum of Consciousness" by Ken Wilber, p. 66)


[Magnus]

>
> See it this way. A snake can't eat itself. It can start eating its own
> tail, and it might at most swallow some of itself but pretty soon it just
> can't swallow more. This is because the snake is not an intellectual
> pattern. The essence of a snake is biological and can't consist of itself.
>
> However, an intellectual pattern, like the text in a document, *can* refer
> to itself. For example the book that lays out the MoQ, Lila, mentions the
> MoQ lots and lots of times, and in doing so, the MoQ (the book Lila) refers
> to itself lots and lots of times. That is the power of the intellectual
> level, no other level can do it.
>

[Platt}
Such references are a subject {Pirsig} referring to an object {the MOQ)
which is good old SOM. Pirsig cautions us in LC not to depend on SOM to tell
us about the central reality of the MOQ because "It is understood by direct
experience only and not by reasoning of any kind." (Note 132.)


[Magnus]
 Also, the objective inorganic and bio levels and subjective social and
intellectual was just something Pirsig said in the SODV paper to make it
easier for SOMists to understand the MoQ. The subjective prefix you use
above has no place, doesn't add any meaning, to MoQers. It just blur things.
A mathematic formula for example, that's an intellectual pattern, right? And
when you manipulate that formula in your head to calculate how many trees
you must chop down to build a cottage, then the formula is the object and
you are the subject. I.e. intellectual patterns *can* be objects too.

>
> [Platt previously]{
>
>> For me the explanation is that the MOQ is a larger system of understanding
>> because unlike intellectual values, it admits a nonintellectual value, DQ,
>> leading to the conclusion that the essence of the MOQ is only understood
>> from a
>> mystic, not an intellectual, perspective.
>>
>
> DQ is not a level above the others, it works just as much on lower levels
> as in higher. Also, the words "understood" and "mystic", do they really
> belong in the same sentence? An understanding implies an intellectual
> rational view of some system, but "mystic" removes the rationality of it and
> replaces it with some inner feeling, and in doing so, it also removed the
> essence of the word "understanding".
>
> [Platt]
As long as we can know something we can't define, like Quality, mystic
understanding is as good as, if not better than.logical positivism.

[Magnus]

> I'm certain many of you are laughing by now about my ignorance. Rationality
> is the very ghost Pirsig tried to get rid of in both ZMM and Lila. And yes,
> that's true for many human endeavours, but not when it comes to discussing a
> metaphysics. Pirsig made quite a point out of Phaedrus' analytical knife
> when he carved up reality. In that process, DQ is only important when
> seeking the initial inspiration for a certain cut. But after that,
> transpiration takes over in the form of formal, rational and static
> thinking.


[Platt]
But to forget, or worse, ignore DQ's prominent role in the MOQ, we, to use
DMB's phrase, "rip out the heart."

>
>
> [Platt previously]
>
The MOQ escapes the intellectual level by including within its system of
>>
>> understanding that, "Thought is not a path to reality,".a direct
>> contradiction
>> of intellectual values.
>>
>
> [Magnus]

> Not a contradiction, just a complement.
>

[Platt}
Good point, well taken.

Regards,
Platt