[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mary

17 May. (Norway's National Day BTW)  

You said to  Arlo:

> I very much like your evolutionary explanation 

Dr Bensinger I presume?
> > I think evolution within the MOQ's structure occurs not as a steady
> > uphill line, but as a series of unexpected leaps that no one sees
> > coming, followed by a time where stability is resought. This occurs
> > within levels, in the case of evolutionary jumps in complexity (say
> > amoebas to dolphins), and also in the case of an entirely new "paradigm"
> > emerging (biological patterns from inorganic patterns). 

> There is a difference between SOL (subject-object logic) and SOM
> (subject-object metaphysics).  I'm no historian, but think the
> emergence of SOM is what Pirsig sees in Socrates' and Aristotle's
> time.

Bodvar:
About SOM's emergence being described in ZAMM there is no 
controversy over, the controversy is over if the same event is the 
emergence of the intellectual LEVEL which ought to be just as non-
controversial  IMO. 
 
> SOL is as old as the Biological Level and germinated from simplistic
> survival thoughts through rudimentary society on up to highly complex
> social and religious ideas until it finally outgrew even the Social to
> achieve the Intellectual Level we see expressed as SOM. 

To pick nits Mary, the SOL is the "intellect = SOM" interpretation. What 
you mean by "SOL as old as ...etc." may be the "self/not self" 
distinction that the biological immune system is based on, but I would 
not call this S/O. There is also the social immune system and this is 
definitely  not based on any subject/object distinction, but on the "law-
abiding/law breaking" distinction. Then finally the intellectual immune 
system that Pirsig attributes to psychiatry - and more than anything 
proves that intellect = SOM. Mental illness is to have lost the 
OBJECTIVE approach to reality.   

Mary?
> All the levels appear to be static, but they are not.  They continue
> to change, though the lower ones are more statically fixed. For them
> change is more constrained by the weight of existing static patterns. 
> I'm thinking particularly of the Inorganic here. In the Biological, we
> do see change at a noticeable rate because one of its premier static
> patterns is DNA.  A static pattern defining a pathway for change.

> Where the controversy seems to lie is in saying that the Intellectual
> Level is defined by symbol manipulation.  This pattern is very old and
> has existed since the Biological in, albeit, much more simplistic form
> than now.  It is necessary for the existence of the Social Level in
> its entirety too.  It is too broad and general a category to ascribe
> to the Intellectual Level alone and invites misunderstanding when the
> Intellectual Level is defined that way.  

> But that is only one reason I dislike that definition.  The levels are
> discrete sets of patterns of values.  You cannot say that symbol
> manipulation is the definition of the Intellectual Level without
> denying that it existed - indeed was a major requirement of the
> Social.

Agreement on the "manipulation of symbol" definition. It's a derailment. 

> Another point of contention arises from the definition of SOM.  You
> can take out a piece of it from here and there and say "that is SOM"
> and you would be right, but that is not all of it.  You could say SOM
> is science, or SOM is the questioning of established religions, or
> other things.  It is those, 

> but at its base it is a set of patterns of value that deny that
> patterns of value exist. 

I would have liked to print this sentence in flaming letters if possible 
because it's s the essence of SOM .SOM is what denies Quality and 
what MOQ's purpose is to overcome and - consequently - because 
intellect is the highest level it MUST be SOM.. Great insight Mary

> It is the denial of Quality and the elevation of the Subject/Object
> split as the primary empirical reality of the world.  Do any on this
> forum disagree with that definition?  It is a backlash against
> established beliefs that formed Societies for thousands of years.  It
> is basically the attitude that it is better to question established
> beliefs than not, tempered with the belief in subject/object supremacy. 
 
This is also spot on!

> Arlo, what I like most about your evolutionary explanation is how you
> show that none of the levels are incapable of change.  This goes for
> the Intellectual Level as well.  It is my thought that as it sits now,
> SOM is the foundational belief upon which the Intellectual Level is
> based.  But, as with DNA in the Biological, that foundation contains
> the seeds for its own alteration.

But this disappoints me, the various levels are static and cannot 
change except within their basic premises so if Intellect is SOM it can 
only spawn new and more refined S/O's - which it does constantly - 
and for intellect to suddenly accept the MOQ would be like life to 
accept death. To give Arlo the little finger is to allow somification of the 
MOQ.      

> The MoQ is a new paradigm struck from the old.  It explains the world
> in a way different from SOM, yet uses SOM principles to do that
> explaining to us. If and when it becomes understood as valuable to
> some critical mass, it will achieve a static latch of its own within
> the Intellectual Level that can drive it beyond SOM, in the same way
> that DNA has driven life forward from bacteria to dolphins.  At its
> base, though, it still relies on the basic SOM attitude that
> established Social beliefs should be questioned.

New "paradigm" is meant to indicate a level shifts and I believe you 
see the MOQ as taking leave of SOM to  form a new level-like 
relationship with the intellectual level. Intellect is NOT thinking so the 
MOQ will have INTELLIGENCE at its disposal. The intellect-MoQ 
relationship is a difficult field, but intellect is the a Q-level and cannot 
contain the MOQ that's for sure. 

Thanks Mary you give and take but the former outweighs the latter. 

Bodvar.