----- Original Message -----
From: Platt Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 10:52 PM
Subject: Re: MD Atomic awareness
Hi Jez:
You wrote:
The nature of practicality, that is the need to maintain static patterns
and the need for dynamism exists at every level, but the exact
requirements are not the same each level. By practicality we usually
mean things which serve our biological nature. If we see intellect as a
separate entity it must have its own 'practical' requirements. Therefore
the MoQ is an intellectually practical theory, as are artistic endeavours.
Food for thought?
I'm not sure I grasp your meaning about the intellect having its own
"practical requirements." We do know that according to Pirsig the
intellect served a very practical role historically. From Lila, Chap. 24:
PIRSIG:
"The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an
ultimate meaning of the universe. That is a relatively recent fad. Its
historical purpose has been to help a society find food, detect danger,
and defeat enemies. It can do this well or poorly, depending on the
concepts it invents for this purpose."
So I think it's safe to say that practicality can also mean serving our
social nature as well as biological nature. Can the MOQ as an
intellectual pattern serve society in the same way art does? Is art
dependent on intellect? How does art serve society? Food for thought?
You bet.
Incidentally, the passage from Lila cited above continues like this:
PIRSIG:
The cells Dynamically invented animals to preserve and improve their
situation. The animals Dynamically invented societies, and societies
Dynamically invented intellectual knowledge for the same reasons.
Therefore, to the question, "What is the purpose of all this intellectual
knowledge?" the Metaphysics of Quality answers, "The fundamental
purpose of knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve society."
Cells, animals, societies-all "inventing," "preserving," and "improving"
their lot by responding to DQ's call, "Follow me for things to get better"
- indicating the presence of practical awareness to the degree
necessary to meet the requirements of all levels.
The high degree of awareness we possess was necessary to create
language which is one of the requirements of intellect. Is this perhaps
what you meant by the "intellect's practical requirements?"
Platt
So many questions! Well I asked for it. I think I'll go for that MA with all
these great questions.
Here goes.
The arrangement of levels, one above the other is clearly showing a dynamic
progression while at the same time maintaining and improving the chances of
survival of the lower level. And yet as you point out;
"The fundamental purpose of knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve
society." RMP.
You could interpret this statement as if the intellectual level where
turning back on itself, its sole purpose being only to serve society, in
effect this would mean THE END for the intellect as a force for dynamic
change to another level.
Intellect must maintain, (static latch) its position, by proving
it's worth to society. Pirsigs criticism, is that it isn't doing this
because of a fundamental philosophical divisional blunder. Pirsigs MoQ
is trying to correct this mistake. This would then allow the dynamic nature
of the intellect to flourish.
I believe that art is part of that dynamic force. Language is a static
pattern of the intellect, a tool by which to control and improve society,
but used as an art form it has a dynamism. The intellect is pushing, through
the experience of quality, to something else a greater awareness perhaps. It
seems that there are degrees of awareness, which have not as we might have
previously believed arrived on the scene exclusively with our intellect.
I do believe that the MoQ way of thinking is filtering into post-modern
society. Maybe alternative language is being used (soft science?) but the
limitations of SOM science and philosophy are forcing new ideas where
previously safe ground was thought to be in an attempt to be dynamic or die.
Persig drew many similarities with Bohr's complimentarity for instance. I
have seen and read much that is travelling towards an alternative view. I
have no doubt that some day his name will be more frequently mentioned.
Which brings me to your question 's'. Can the MOQ as an intellectual pattern
serve society in the same way art does? Is art dependent on intellect? How
does art serve society?
Art has served society in its depiction of the romantic, victorian values,
religious visions etc. Art has been used as a tool for
controlling/manipulating society. It still does in advertising.
It also has this dynamic capacity for, in part, bringing about change which
has nothing to do with the intellectual levels obligation to society. Yes,
the intellect is required for this dynamic genre of art. BUT! Without an
alternative direction it is suffering the same fate as SOM science and
philosophy. All these areas of study are linked and inspire/direct each
other.
We have seen shock art for example which in my opinion tried to find a
dynamic route, but this wore off and became a static pattern society accepts
as the product of eccentric 'artists'. There is I believe a dynamic future
for the intellectual level that perhaps with a greater awareness we might be
able to direct. The intellect has therefor its own requirements that have
nothing to do with those of biology and society (yes you were quite right to
include society). Dynamic art and poetry and metaphysics which seem to have
no practical value for any other level are food for intellectual
progression. Which led 3DW to ask what practical use to everyday experience
is knowing or even just asking if atoms have awareness.
Cells, animals, societies-all "inventing," "preserving," and "improving"
their lot by responding to DQ's call, "Follow me for things to get better"
- indicating the presence of practical awareness to the degree
necessary to meet the requirements of all levels.
The requirements of all levels have dynamic quality as the future. What are
the practical requirements for dynamism of each level? That they be in touch
with and are aware of to some degree, quality. The intellect has according
to Persig been out of touch with quality and because of objectivity been
unable to acknowledge it. The intellect is still struggling with its
fundamental purpose.
"The fundamental purpose of knowledge is to Dynamically improve and preserve
society." RMP.
This is one practical requirement; the other is dynamic change. What is
practical to the dynamic intellectual level?
For example, when I set about sculpting my abstract work I try not to think
of what anyone else or society will make of the outcome. I try to set aside
thought. I can then have an experience. Am I in touch with quality? I
suppose even with a sceptical, practical pragmatic consciousness, I would
like to think an evolutionary intellectual awareness reaches it.
"The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an
ultimate meaning of the universe. That is a relatively recent fad"
I didn't suggest that, but I suppose I can forgive you for thinking I
implied it. I do not believe this awareness of quality is to discover a TOE.
I see these endeavours (art, metaphysics etc.) as a means of awareness
growth. I suppose this could be a metaphysical TOE but one which, as I
believe RMP wished to show, was open ended, and certainly not the one
cosmology and quantum physics has been looking for.
I might as well add a bit about the two MoQ's suggested. There is quality,
and there is the MoQ which aims to show the way to quality. The MoQ is a
theory, a construct. Imperfect. I t creates discussion and growth towards
understanding the path not knowing where it takes us. In this sense asking
esoteric questions, creating abstract art and poetry are a practical means
to awareness growth for intellectual dynamism. We are born to analyse and be
creative but we cannot change Quality. We have only interpretations of it.
Adding as ifs, and adding hypotheses are a part of the evolutionary process.
If we at least acknowledge Quality then we are Pirsigian. If Pirsigs theory
is strong enough it will slough off any attempts at modification.
Thoughts are coming in fast about whether an aesthetic appreciation is
actually common to all levels. We have talked about art and language, which
are forms of communication which as a static pattern can maintain a
position. But communication can reach out, form new connections, and explore
possibilities.
I think what I've said about practicalities still holds but discussion is
showing that art or language is used differently to achieve static patterns
and dynamic change. The question is weather atoms and cells appreciate art.
I always say good art has a balance and dynamism which objective science
cannot measure. The products of an experience with Quality? Shared by other
levels. Atoms which communicate with the aesthetic?
I need to think. Theres enough here for a PHD never mind an MA.
Thanks for the questions.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
