[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[Platt Holden]

Hi Horse,

On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 4:35 PM, Horse <horse at darkstar.uk.net> wrote:

> Hi Platt
>
> Apologies in advance for the length of this post - it just seemed to take
> on a life of it's own!
>
> [Platt]
No worries. But, in this post I left out some sections we wrote before.

>
>>>>  [Platt previously]]
>> No doubt in some instances Pirsig considers" thought" to be the
>> intellectual level. But, in other instances he considers the intellectual
>> level to be the subject-object understanding.
>>
>
> [Horse]

> I think that Pirsig sees the subject-object point of view as the dominant
> pattern of the Intellectual level, at different times referring to it as a
> metaphysical position and at other times as a way of thinking about certain
> aspects of the division of static reality. That's entirely reasonable as
> this is the way we are traditionally conditioned to perceive reality. But he
> also considers the MoQ to explain this mode of thinking as an opposing
> pattern. I can't find anywhere that he makes a case for either a
> metaphysical (SOM) or thought related (subject-object thinking) position as
> being the only patterns within the Intellectual level in the same way that
> he doesn't limit the other levels to a single type of value pattern. There
> are inorganic, biological or social patterns that are dominant at certain
> times and certain contexts but this doesn't mean to say that each level is
> composed exclusively of one particular type of pattern.
> In a different thread (AI thread) you referred to a number of different
> Social patterns - religion, government, armies etc. - and you could also
> include cities, nations, families, tribes and whole bunch of other social
> patterns. Can you pick one and say that IT is the social level? They all
> occupy a niche within the social level, sometimes one will contain others
> and you can use several simultaneously to describe other patterns and groups
> of patterns. Nations contain cities and states and towns and villages but a
> nation isn't just these patterns. Similarly, cities contain boroughs and
> families live within these boroughs - all social patterns co-existing at the
> social level. You can also have a social identity within these social
> patterns. I'm a Londoner, English, British and European simultaneously
> without any conflict whatsoever.
> By limiting a level to a single pattern type you destroy the possibilities
> and the richness that varied pattern types bring to that level. Why limit
> intellectual patterns to a single instance and limit yourself to a single
> point of view. It's like limiting a symphony to a single note or a painting
> to a single colour or a language to a single word. Yuck!
>

[Platt]
I can't find any place where Pirsig says that S/O is the dominant pattern
among many at the intellectual level. I agree that the intellectual level
contains all sorts of intellectual patterns, but all are characterized by
the S/O division, just as all social patterns are characterized by group
identity, all biological patterns by DNA, and all inorganic patterns by
energy. It's the amoral S/O intellectual level that dominates society,
causing problems. It's the dominance of amoral S/O over society that must be
replaced by a new, more inclusive value-oriented paradigm. Isn't that the
message of the MOQ?


> [Platt previously]
>
>> There's the rub. What I don't comprehend (and what you may be able to
>> clarify for me) is how the MOQ as a static intellectual pattern can include
>> itself in its own intellectual level, i.e., the problem of a smaller
>> container trying to contain a larger one.
>>
>> [Horse}

Andre beat me to the dictionary parallel in an earlier post and I think this
> gives an excellent instance of how a definitional system can contain itself
> without conflict. A dictionary defines words and a metaphysics defines
> concepts so a system of definition, which is what a metaphysics is, can
> reference itself without any problem whatsoever as long as you understand
> that it is a reference to and not an instance of - i.e. neither SOM or MoQ
> are instances of reality they are references to reality. Or you could maybe
> think as it as a recursive process. Recursion within language does this all
> the time and provides the scope for a, literally, infinitely variable set of
> sentences. Where's the problem?
>
> [Platt]
Perhaps this is an example how different patterns of life history account
for different views. Your computer experience gives a systems perspective.
My advertising experience gives me a semantic perspective. So it would never
occur to me to think of a dictionary as a system. Rather, to me a dictionary
is a container of many definitions including the definition of a dictionary,
a larger container (abstraction) containing a smaller one. Pirsig used the
container analogy several times, including the following:.

"The problem of describing value in terms of substance has been the problem
of a smaller container trying to contain a larger one. Value isn't a
subspecies of substance. Substance is a subspecies of value." (Lila, 8)

      [Platt previously]

> I can show you where Pirsig associates the intellectual level with
>> scientific subject-object understanding:
>>
>> "The INTELLECTUAL LEVEL of patterns, in the historic process of
>> freeing itself from its parent social level, namely the church, has
>> invented
>> a myth of independence from the social level for its own benefit. Science
>> and reason, the myth goes, comes only from the objective world, never
>> from the social world. (Lila 12)
>>
>> "What had happened since the end of World War I was that this
>> INTELLECTUAL LEVEL had entered the picture and had taken over
>> everything. It was this INTELLECTUAL LEVEL that was screwing
>> everything up." (Lila, 24)
>>
>> "Today we are living in an intellectual and technological paradise and a
>> moral and social nightmare because the INTELLECTUAL LEVEL of
>> evolution in its struggle to become free of the social level has ignored
>> the
>> social level's role in keeping the biological level under control." (Lila,
>> 24)
>>
>> Not only does PIrsig directly tie SOM to the intellectual level in these
>> passages but in doing so continues the critique of reason, intellect and
>> intellectualism that he laid out so clearly and passionately in ZAMM. For
>> example:
>>
>> "That's probably why he felt such a deep kinship with so many failing
>> students in the back rows of his classroom. The contemptuous looks on
>> their faces reflected the same feelings he had toward the whole rational
>> intellectual process.". .
>>
>>
> [Horse}
> My interpretation of the above quotes would be that a subject object
> metaphysics or a subject object way of thinking, AS THE DOMINANT PATTERN
> WITHIN THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL, has caused the problems described above.
> Pirsig ties the problem to the dominance of this pattern of values within
> the level and not to the pattern of values being the entirety of the level
> itself.
> Take another example. Microsoft is the dominant operating system for home
> computers. Home computers access the internet. The spread of viruses, spam
> and general malware is caused mainly by poor security of Microsoft operating
> systems which causes problems for everyone accessing the internet. This
> doesn't mean that Microsoft is the only operating system for home computers
> - or that we'd want it to be. Dominance doesn't equate to exclusivity.
>

[Platt]
I agree dominance doesn't mean exclusivity. But, as I argue, the
intellectual level contains S/O exclusively. To use a computer analogy, S/O
is to the intellectual level as the 1/0 division is to computers, exclusive
to all computers as far as I know.

[Horse]
Thinking (the intellectual level) developed from the social level in order
to give societies a better tool with which to perpetuate their existence. In
the same way, social patterns developed from the biological level in order
to give humans a better way to perpetuate their existence. Does it make
sense to put cities, nations and other social patterns in the biological
level? This collapses the entire MoQ in upon itself.

[Platt]
You seem to suggest that all patterns were present from the beginning and
emerged over time, like the development of an embryo. I thought patterns
were left in the wake of DQ. Are both right?


[Horse]
>
> In terms of Art (in the broad sense) we come at this from different angles
> so it could be useful to see if they coincide at some point. I can feel a
> few clichés coming on but hopefully they won't sound too pretentious and
> you'll get the gist of what I'm saying.
> You're a painter, I'm a musician. Let's say for arguments sake, at the
> moment, that Art is a means of approaching Dynamic Quality - sneaking up on
> it if you will. You start off with some ideas and get into the process of
> painting or playing. When we continue to practice our respective activities
> we become "lost in the moment". Time pretty much disappears and the painting
> or music becomes the whole world for a brief moment. But we don't stop
> thinking completely because we still need to do what we're doing in order to
> maintain that moment. It doesn't actually seem to be thinking or acting in
> the same way though - and it's not quite an automated process either.
> Killing the intellectual patterns isn't quite right because we'll need them
> again when we emerge, so it's more like putting them to sleep for the
> duration of the moment. Making them dormant or at least reducing their
> importance. Then at some point.... POW....and we're back to reality with a
> bit of a shock. That's the initial part of it anyway. You have shapes and
> colours on your canvas and I have recorded sounds on disc. We take a look or
> listen at them, think about them a bit...is this bit right, is that bit
> right, a bit more of this here or there and you're off again - back into
> wherever it was you were - back to "the moment". That's how it feels to me
> anyway but it's a very difficult state to describe, and where words and
> explanations generally fail dismally.
> Is beauty when you're "in the moment" or is it when you examine the
> results? Or neither? Or both? Hmmm.
>

[Platt]
Superb! I couldn't have describe the experience of creating art better. You
have written a "keeper." Thanks.

[Horse]

> From Lila:
> "First, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of biological
> life over inanimate nature. Second, there were moral codes that established
> the supremacy of the social order over biological life—conventional
> morals—proscriptions against drugs, murder, adultery, theft and the like.
> Third, there were moral codes that established the supremacy of the
> intellectual order over the social order—democracy, trial by jury, freedom
> of speech, freedom of the press. Finally there’s a fourth Dynamic morality
> which isn’t a code. He supposed you could call it a “code of Art” or
> something like that, but art is usually thought of as such a frill that that
> title undercuts its importance."
>
> This code of art could be the link between what we are doing (thinking
> about painting/playing) and the what we're experiencing ("the moment"). The
> experience (the moment) certainly seems to trump the intellect which is
> maybe what Pirsig appears to be getting at.
>
> Perhaps this also relates to "mystic understanding" mentioned above in that
> it is the understanding/knowing that you have after this particular
> experience.
>
> I'll stop there for now but would love to hear what you think - if the
> above makes any sense whatsoever!
>
> [Platt]
Makes a lot of sense. I would only add that at all times, whether "in the
moment" or "examining the results" we should try to illuminate both modes of
experience with high quality so that the DQ all around shines through. I
don't know of any secret to make that happen, but when it does, I know it's
time to quit.

[Horse}

> Personally, I would have said that to understand the metaphysics aspect of
> the MoQ, intellect is sufficient. To understand the underlying concept of
> Quality upon which it's built, all the intellect in the world is
> insufficient. You have to experience it to know or understand it but when
> you have experienced it you certainly do know it! Describing it in terms of
> static patterns is something completely different - and probably impossible.
> It's something you feel deep down. That's my take on it anyway.
>

 [Platt]
I think your take is correct. As Pirsig said, reason alone misses the
essence of the MOQ.

The only real issue we seem to have is about the nature of intellect and its
place in the MOQ evolutionary structure. Going back to the container
analogy, the following quote from Pirsig supplies evidence that the MOQ
stands above its static intellectual level:

"What the MOQ would do is take this separate category, Quality, and show how
it contains within itself both subjects and objects." (Lila, 5)

I hope I haven't left out an important section from our previous posts. If
so, my apologies in advance.

Finally, thanks for a most enjoyable conversation.

Best,
Platt



>
>
>
>  -
>
> "Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production
> deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
> — Frank Zappa
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>