[MD] Intellectual level

[Jan-Anders]

Hello Mary and all.

I say that the Quality concept has dynamic Value, dynamic Pattern and a 
dynamic Energy or Is-ness. This is an addition that doesn't oppose to 
RMP's Quality concept. I think it can help a lot to know.

The Isness of MOQ or the reason why it exist at all is a result from ZMM 
and Lila and is fed by all of us that supports its existence. As long as 
we are giving it energy it will succeed. No matter of what's properly 
said or written.

The Pattern of it is made up of all our submissons in the discussion, it 
can be seen as something with an unbiased, objective form or just as a 
long string of letters in a certain common order. It is in the order or 
pattern where the letters and paragraphs are put that matters. Green can 
be written with 5 or maybe 500 characters.

The Value of it is emerges when it is interpreted by us subjectively and 
compared to our own part of the universal quality event. Sad story abut 
the green for color-blind people.

With this in mind it should be clear that it's just not a paradox but a 
triadox. Instead of making a dichotomy we need to make a trichotomy; 
Isness (number, energy, mass), Pattern (objective shape, color, form) 
and Value (subjective and always in relation to other). Any attempt to 
compare some of these three as one will fail as you just cannot compare 
amount with order or find an objective value.

There are art fairs bot no fair art.

Energy, Pattern and Value. These are the general conditions that 
separates the possible from the impossible, stating that anything is 
possible and nothing is impossible, just as "the word" in the beginning 
of the gospel of St John. To be the Ultimate True "Word" then it should 
be the Word that also makes the Word itself possible. Hi World!

Any idea will survive in the Intellectual Level as long as someone puts 
a value in it, supports it by energy (think, talk and write it), keeps 
the original form, (static) or getting (dynamic) better . Ideas die if 
they can't get any longer support, it's original form is forgotten or it 
is seen as worthless.

Any event that can balance these three independent classes continue to 
be, happen and work. Any event or process that fails in one or two of 
these classes cease to exist. A flower continue to exist as specie as 
long as it can get energy (water, earth, carbondioxide and sunshine), as 
long as it keep its DNA in order and as long as any bee puts a value on 
it. Any atom or inorganic particle exist just as a matter of time.

Thats goodness to me.

Jan-Anders

moq_discuss-request at lists.moqtalk.org skrev 2011-01-03 03.05:
> Hello Ham,
>
> [Ham]
> Welcome back, Mary, and Happy New Year to you all --
>
> [Mary replies]
> Thanks and Happy New Year to you as well!
> You make a few points here I can't agree with.  I wonder if we can make any progress today?
>
> [Ham]
> If I am right, the "paradox" Platt and Ian are lamenting is not the limitations of Intellect but of the MoQ itself.
>
> [Mary replies]
> Pirsig would say that Quality, Values, and Morals all exist independently of an intellect to pass judgment on them.
>
> [Ham]
> Existence is a paradox because of the contradictions it exhibits.
>
> Outside of a mind with preferences, goodness cannot exist."
>
> [Mary replies]
> This is true if you believe the goodness is an aspect of the thing, but If you turn it around and say the thing is an aspect of the goodness, then preferences become secondary.  Does Lila have goodness?  No.  Goodness has Lila.
>
> [Ham]
> "Something cannot be valued without a consciousness.  Value is a property that exists within minds.  Something can be valued by some people in the world, nobody in the world, or even everyone in the world, but there cannot be a value that is 'objective,' 'necessary,'
> or 'a priori.'  In other words, there cannot be anything that is desirable to, and independent of, every possible point of view.
>
> [Mary replies]
> I happen to think there are some things that do have a priori value, but for those that do not, Pirsig constructed the levels.
>
> [Ham]
> Any belief that such a value exists can only be supported by a na?ve argument that fails to make a connection between what exists and what ought to be.  In order for something to have value, there must be a point of view to perceive it.
>
> [Mary replies]
> Again, this is only true if you define value as a property.
>
> [Ham]
> Mr. Pirsig has equated his Quality with Value.  Although the unnamed author does not claim to have developed a metaphysics, insofar as existential values are concerned, this on-line essay complements the MoQ as well as the "intellectual point of view", in my opinion.  (Of course, it assumes that the reader believes in a subjective self.)  You can access the full text athttp://www.indval.org/IV.htm.
>
> I am curious as to how the Pirsigians will react to this philosophy, and whether it resolves what they see as paradoxical.
>
> [Mary replies]
> I apologize, but so much wordplay has gone on for so long on this site that I am honestly at a total loss to know what you mean by the "intellectual point of view".  Can you explain?   I have long contended (once Marsha said something that sparked transcendent thought, that is) that the Intellectual Level represents the set of values that prize the subject/object dichotomy we experience in everyday life.  It is this Pirsig struggled to vanquish with the insights of the MoQ.  As you read ZMM, it seems clear that were it not for his fundamental unease with the standard subject/object world-view in the first place, he would likely never have come up with the MoQ at all.  There would have been no need.  It was the catalyst - no -  the reason the MoQ exists today.
>
> Best,
> Mary