[MD] Social Intellectual

[skutvik at online.no]

DMB, All.

21 July you quoted LILA for the benefit of the populace.:

> "A conventional subject-object metaphysics uses the same four static
> patterns as the MOW, dividing them into two groups of two:
> inorganic-biological patterns called 'matter', and social-intellectual
> patterns called 'mind'. But this division is the source of the
> problem. When a subject-object metaphysics regards matter and mind as
> eternally separate and eternally unalike, it creates a platypus bigger
> than the solar system." (Lila 153)
 
Even the start of this alleged "solution"  of the mind/matter paradox is 
skewed. SOM doesn't really acknowledge any "static patterns", but OK 
this far. 
 
> "Then, having made this arbitrary division based on 'substance',
> conventional metaphysics then asks, 'What is the relationship between
> mind and matter, between subjects and objects?'  ... Our language is
> so organized around them and they are so convenient to use it is
> impossible to get rid of them. There is really no need to. Like
> 'substance' they can be used as long as it it remember that they're
> terms for collections of patterns and not some independent primary
> reality all their own." (Lila 154)

It's really based on the "substance/spirit" variety of SOM or -better - 
Aristotle's "substance" as real and "form" as illusory, but OK 

> "In a value-centered MOQ the four set of static patterns are not
> isolated into separate compartments of mind and matter. 

In the MOQ the Mind/Matter division is no longer existence's 
fundament but relegated the role of the static intellectual level.

> Matter is just a name for certain inorganic value patterns. Biological
> patterns, social patterns, and intellectual patterns are supported by
> this patterns of matter but are independent of it. They have rules and
> laws of their own that are not deribbable from the frules or laws of
> substance." (Lila 154)  is  
  
No objections.

> "The mind-matter paradoxes seem to exist because the connecting links
> between these two levels of value patterns have been disregarded. Two
> terms are missing; biology and society. 

But here THE problem begins. Above he says that " ...matter is just a 
name for certain inorganic value patterns", but is "mind a name for 
intellectual patterns" ... in the MOQ???? At some other place he goes 
to great lengths to demonstrate (by way of Quantum Theory) that there 
is no matter, and if inorganic doesn't correspond to matter, then 
intellect doesn't correspond to mind.       

> Mental patterns do not originate our of inorganic nature. They
> originate out of society, which originates out of biology which
> originates out of inorganic nature.

Had he said "SOM's mind and  matter interact constantly, thoughts 
moves matter and matter alters mind, but according to SOM the two 
are two realms with no connecting link between them. The MOQ has 
no mind/matter problem. Intellectual patterns aren't mental and 
inorganic patterns aren't corporeal,  intellect originate out of society, 
which ......etc.      

> And, as anthropologists know so well, what a mind thinks is as
> dominated by social patterns as social patterns are dominated by
> inorganic patterns. There is no direct scientific connection between
> mind and matter. As the atomic physicist, Niels Bohr, said, 'We are
> suspended in language'. Our intellectual descriptio n of nature is
> always culturally derived." (Lila 155) 

Well, good enough, but this "weak interpretation" is cumbersome and 
limps considerably. Particularly when it is repeated in "Lila's Child" and 
he says something like inorganic and biology belongs to the material 
world and society and intellect belongs to the mental world. As if SOM 
still rules and the MOQ's static range must correspond to its S/O 
matrix. That's outright horrible, but then LC - particularly - the "hidden 
annotations" part is full of horrible statements.   

So why not - speaking about Niels Bohr who promoted the strong 
interpretation of Quantum Theory - take the step to the strong 
interpretation of the MOQ and skip all pretensions of aligning SOM 
and MOQ and say that SOM is MOQ's intellectual level and its 
mind/matter problem arose from the time intellect ruled and was 
regarded existence's fundament, with MOQ's DQ/SQ and SOM's new 
reduced stature as the 4th. level the S/O-induced paradoxes goes 
poof!   

> "This may sound as though a purpose of the MOQ is to trash all
> subject-object thought but that not true. Unlike SOM the MOQ does not
> insist on a single exclusive truth. 

Bah! It insists on the single exclusive truth that the DQ/SQ 
configuration is true, to try to avoid THAT leads into absurdities. 

> If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality then were
> permitted only one construction of things - that which corresponds to
> the 'objective' world - and all other constructions are unreal. But if
> Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes
> possible for more than one set of truths to exist.  ...

It does not allow anything else than the DQ/SQ construction of things, 
because if some other configuration arrives it will not be a Quality 
such, in contrast to what Pirsig seems to think there is no Quality 
outside the MOQ, the Quality=Reality is MOQ's first and foremost 
axiom. As with Newton who created the Gravity Reality Pirsig created 
the Quality Reality.    

> There are many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can
> perceive some to have more quality than others,.. ... 

All intellectual patterns are invariably S/O. 

> Both are simply intellectual patterns for interpreting reality and one
> can only say that in some circumstances rectangular coordinates provide
> a better, simpler explanation." (Lila 100) 

"Intellectual patterns for interpreting reality" is SOM to the hilt. An 
objective reality "out there" with countless subjective interpretations "in 
here". We see how the QUALITY/MOQ meta-metaphysics fits this. 
Quality now the objective realm with the MOQ one of the many 
subjective interpretations. Good Grief.

Bodvar