Todd, David B and MF.
This month's topic is the most exotic one we have taken on and
many interesting inputs have appeared. Todd's of 17 October is one
of them.
TODD wrote:
> When I look at this first part of the question, my first reaction
> is that
> this is a definitively bold statement. I mean �. "If that's "all
> there is", my friends than lets keep dancing, lets break out the
> booze and have a ball� la laa la laaaa�". Ok stop singing. Of
> course, the "all there is" part has to be put in context of the
MOQ.
> And so, "all there is" does not constitute an end, as in "the end"
> but rather "all there is"; as in "at this point, until now", so far,
> in the moment", etc. etc. If "all there is", was meant to be an
end;
> all would be left to static quality and as MOQ followers, we all
> know that "all there is" is Quality, which includes both static and
> dynamic quality.
I endorse this fully.
> Yes, it is possible. Because ' with Quality all things all possible'
> ! But seriously, of course it is possible for a 5th level to emerge
> because DQ is always in motion. And I just stated above, that
>the four levels currently of "all there is" do not constitute an End.
Likewise
> OK, Now for the fun part of the question, the purely speculative
> part, (the murky part as Keith might say) the chaotic spin part
> and I am already enjoying getting dizzy.
> Behind door # 3.14� L5 candidate, loosely titled: The Emotional
> Level.
> The emotional level should not be confused with an emotional
state.
> The latter being submersed in a one sided view or value pattern.
The
> emotional level (L5) will conversely be able to clearly see and
feel
> the VALUE OF OPPOSITION. Internal descriptions of opposition
include
> such things as: Love-Hate, Sadness-Joy, Contempt-
Compassion,
> Anger-Mercy, Attraction-Repulsion etc. etc. External
descriptions of
> opposition include such things as: Branch-Root, Ceiling-Floor,
> Artery-vein, Top-Bottom, Expansion-Contraction etc. etc. And of
> course in my very description, we have the opposition of
> internal-external. And in the course of our focus group
discussions
> we frequently touch on the higher forces or......
What you wrote here made great sense .....gradually. L5 an
"Emotional level" !? At first I did not buy it, emotions are to me THE
social expression par excellance. What would co-existence be
without love and hate and all other "signals" of what is desireable
and what is tabu. But then you said that an emotional state should
not be confused with your EMOTIONAL LEVEL, and as you
developed your idea it became warmer. "Value of opposition"
Hmmmm?! Again, as I see it, the mother of all oppositions is the
S/O one (according to the "Bod� School" the Q-Intellect itself).
Lower down you compress the oppositions into "internal/external"
and "mind/matter". Great, these are the chief S/O aliases and (if i
get you right) something a fifth level will "transcend". So,Todd,
you seemingly are a S/O- intellect adherer. But how long was
Adam in paradise?:-) You went on:
> ....separations of opposition, we speak of Mind-Matter split,
reason-energy battles,
> subject-object terms, dynamic-static values etc. etc. Separation
is
> the very nature of SOM itself. And it does have high value as it
> enables our intellect.
"SOM enabling intellect". Why not see it as Q-intellect itself and
do away with all complications?
> I suspect that this knowledge will come into its element by
> alchemy of
> Kant's "a priori" knowledge and Poincar�'s conventionalism.
> Although who knows? Hopefully some prophetic genius such as
Pirsig
> will come along and help the seed crystal of L5 to grow.
About Kant I don't know, but the prophet has already sown the
crystal. The Quality idea!
> I also agree with the majority of the group that L5's arrival will
> seem
> quite irrational to those immersed in L4. (Just as L4 does to
those
> still immersed in L3) I also agree with Bo and others belief that it
> will act to constraint intellect and "in a way" ally itself with
> intellect's predecessor of Society.
Great to see that you recognize the element of "constraint" that a
L5 will exercise upon Intellect and also that it (possibly) will ally
itself with Society.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID B.
wrote:
> It seems Bo and I agree much more than not. After re-reading his
10/14
> post again I've come to the conclusion that the only significant
> difference between us is Bo's SOLAQI. And I have a lot of
sympathy for
> the idea, inspite of my objections. I can't count myself as a
member
> of either the Bodo or Chicago schools of the MOQ, but if it were
like
> an ideological spectrum I'd probably end up in Bergen.
Not bad, that is at least 9/10th the distance. But it is a middle way
possible?
> The concision of this is astonishing... BO SAYS>>> "As I see
it
> mind-intellect is much like SOM's mind: the thinking realm where
> reality is either reproduced (materialists) or created (idealists)
> ...or both (Horse)?" I'd like to hear more about Horse's view in
this
> context, but the quote neatly identifies the problem with SOM's
> "mind". Epistemology within a SOM context is a nightmare, a
maze full
> of dead ends and absurdities. But we part company when you
say SOLAQI
> frees us from SOM residue.
> BO WRITES>>> "If MOQ is to stand on its own it must free itself
from
> such SOM residue, and I believe that intellect as subject/object-
logic
> fulfills this. Thus seen the one value that characterizes it is the
> ability of looking OBJECTIVELY upon existence. What's more it
show its
> social origins. Social values become the subjectivity that Q-
intellect
> hates but never really manages to free itself from ...another
> important MOQ tenant."
I am greatly pleased with your evaluation of the SOLAQI. You
understand it and even see its virtues, but you went on:
> If I may return to the analogy Bo used in an earlier post, there is
no
> lever or objective pivot point with which to "move" SOM out of the
> way. Instead Bo puts the MOQ on top of SOM, but I can only
agree with
> the principle and not the method. I think that intellect is much
more
> than OBJECTIVITY and social values are so much more than
SUBJECTIVITY.
> Strickly speaking, subjectivity and objectivity are features of the
> intellectual level, but there is a corresponding duality at the
social
> level too. The social level has its own kind of subject/object split
> and it has served as the basis of SOM. At the social level the
> distinction between self and the other is very much a part of the
> game. Social relations and heirarchies hardly make sense
without
> distinctions like he, me, she, we and them. This same split even
seems
> to occur at the biological level; just about any warm-blooded
creature
> could be said to make a distinction between its own temperature
and
> the thermal state of their enviroment.
> But I like the principle because it puts SOM within the MOQ. It
> doesn't try to pry the SOM out of our view like one would use a
> crowbar to remove a section of the sidewalk. I think this is
Pirsig's
> approch too. He doesn't throw it away so much as he surrounds
and
> infiltrates SOM. The MOQ breaks out of and surpasses SOM,
but without
> destroying it entirely. Pirsig just puts it in its place, so to speak.
> He surrounds SOM's scientific objectivity with Eastern
philosophy,
> Mysticism, insanity and even certain kinds of subjectivity, as in
the
> homage to dhyana. He infiltrates SOM by discerning the social
values
> as its own level of reality and by slipping it between the once
> disconnected "mind and body". This infiltration is accomplished
by
> re-thinking anthropology in a non-objective way, by reasserting
the
> value of mythology via "The Masks of God" and even Bohr's
> Complimentarity where he says "we are suspended in language"
To concentrate on your objections. "Intellect much more than
OBJECTIVITY" What more than objectivity (what is independent of
our opinions) is intellect about? "Social values so much more than
SUBJECTIVITY". My point is that social values are subjective seen
from Intellect. When focussed at that plane there are of course no
"subjectivity" in sight.
Duality at the Social level? The differentiation between self and not
self has nothing to do with subject/objectivity, that is a biological
trait, all organisms "know"/sense what is their body. But imagine a
caveman saying: " I don't believe in this nonsense that our elders
tell (whatever his tribe's myth), there must be a scientific (objective)
explanation" No, there were no such individuals - there could not
be - all phenomenons were aspects of their common myth.
Thunder and lightning (for example) in our Nordic mythology were
the god Tor wielding his hammer.
An aside. You do possibly believe that when we - twentieth
century humans - display social values we do so as in a "new"
subject/object fashion, but no. There are no new inorganic or
biological value different from the old ones and social value is
exactly the same today as it was in the stone age. But the present
cultures are radically transformed by Intellect.
> . Pirsig fills the gap between "mind" and "body".
> He fills it with a level of static quality that SOM can barely see,
> thereby recovering the baby that was thrown out with the
>bathwater. You know, science was born during the inquisition and
>genocidal "religious" wars.
Exactly.
> A WEATHERED MYTHOS LONG SINCE PAST?
> SOM suffers from its blindness to social level values, it suffers
from
> the insistence that scientific knowledge not only trumps but also
> replaces all previous forms of understanding. Mythology is not
just in
> the past. Its not just in the pages of dusty old books. Mythology
is a
> huge warehouse full of value-able information, real static quality,
> and it is within us all whether we realize it or not. It has a power
> over us whether we realize it or not. Its no accident that Freud
was
> able to describe psychological complexes in terms of ancient
Greek
> gods and heros. Its not an accident that Shelly's Frankenstien is
> subtitled "The modern Prometheus" or that Plato's division of the
> psyche (Passion, reason and temperance) should appear on Star
Trek as
> McCoy, Spock and Kirk. Hell, you can see mythological figures
in comic
> books, Saturday morning cartoons and a zillion other places too.
ET
> was Christ figure, for God's sake. Even the realtively superficial
> Spielberg can't help it. Of course the trick is to find some
coherence
> and meaning among the rubble. Our mythology lies in ruins
because of
> SOM. Because of SOM, our consciousness has been split, torn
asunder,
> ripped up by its roots, taken from the soil and placed in some
> luke-warm, sterile, hydroponic contraption. The isolated
> ego-consciousness needs to be replanted back into its terra
firma, the
> social level.
I liked this, but don't you see. It makes absolutely no difference if
you say SOM or Intellect. Intellect is the levels which is supposed
to suppress the Social level, so if you say it is SOM that does
that......fine, you are deep in SOLAQI thinking!!!!. David, you write
as a true S/O-intellectualist, but you won't accept it. Strange.
If the stumbling stone is the metaphysical bit, I must stress that
Intellect won't be SO-M, but merely SO as a Q-level.
> I like Roger's idea that consciousness lies within all the levels of
> static patterns. Or rather they are manifestations of awareness
> itself. And I think he's right to point out Pirsig's apparently
> deliberate avoidance of the word "consciousness". It does seem
to be
> tied up with Quality itself. I'd even say that its one of the MOQ's
> "open secrets". We get phrases like "primary empirical reality",
> "pre-intellectual awareness" and "undifferentiated aesthetic
> continuum" which all indicate some kind of perception and some
ability
> to discern reality. The word "quality" itself implies
consciousness,
> doesn't it? It my impression that the MOQ describes a universe
that is
> totally aware, but on different levels. And this is kind of
> consciousness is not the same as ego-consciousness, and it
doesn't
> even depend on sense organs, that's just biology's version of it,
just
> static quality's reprise of the universal song. I mean, aren't static
> patterns of quality the manifestations of a larger awareness? Isn't
> the evolutionary migration toward DQ a building process which
expands
> the fruits of DQ's action? In speculating on the 5th level I can't
> imagine anything more likely than sweeter fruit.
Yes Roger is right, but it has mislead him somewhat. IMHO!!!!!!!
The starting point of the MOQ is the Subject/Object Metaphysics
breakdown (that sent Phaedrus to the hospital). That is:
everything is (in the) MIND (the alternative that everything is matter
is not tenable). However, Pirsig did not chose mind,
consciousness or any other term but VALUE when he proposed
his new metaphysics. We know why: it is a concept with so
many valences (like the carbon atom) that it binds to everything. If
Pirsig had presented a metaphysics of consciousness he would
have been "safe" It would have been of the common run -
something like Ken Wilber, but not OF GENIUS. The
consciousness term is loaded to the plimsoll mark with
spirituality and a MOC would have attracted hordes of
"spiritualists" who would have destroyed Pirsig's grand idea.
As the static sequence unfolds it may in a way be seen as an
increase in "consciousness", but (as you said David) that would
mean a consciousness which pervades ALL levels in exactly the
same way as the present value does, so why introduce this foreign
element? Value is the element of MOQ and goes all the way! It is
disastrous to introduce an otherworldly intellect different from the
rest of the static levels. It means that the mind/matter split is
reintroduced.
I would so dearly have gone along with this "noble" trend, but no
sooner are the "consciousness/awareness/sentience" words
uttered before one hears the ominous rumble of the SOM
(mind/matter) train coming down the line. No let's stick to value:
Intellect is the value of subject/objectivity, a fifth value level will
(from intellect) possibly look like an "increase of consciousness"
(intellect sees everything in the SO [Mind/Matter] context), but it
will be a another twist of the value screw.
Will we survive this month?
Bo
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
