Re: LS is intellect its own level?
ROGER (Parker actually) ATTEMPTS ANOTHER CONSENSUS WITH BODVAR ON THE NATURE OF ARISTOTLE'S SUBSTANCE Hi Bo, Marco and Squadies, Before we go on, I must make a disclosure to the group. My original post this month was inspired. You see, I did a mecca. It was the Chicago jazz festival at the beginning of the month, and my wife and I went downtown for the weekend. And -- get this -- I wrote my Greek post at sunrise looking out over NAVY PIER!! Seriously though, I see us as again nearing the apex of the SOM and intellect issue. The outstanding topic is of course the mind/matter idealism/realism issue as it relates to Aristotle. My good friend Bo and I had the following dialogue: ROG: >As I stated in my post of Sept 5th, this idealism issue is critical when >getting our minds around the intellectual level and the ramifications of the >logos. As long as we continue mistaking our words and concepts for "primal >reality" we continue to live in Aristotle's world. I wrote: BO: I am not convinced that you pay Aristotle full justice. HE did not mistake words and concepts for primal reality, inspired by Plato he created the distinction between substance and form; idea and illusion. The fact that his 'substance' was reality and 'form' the actual animal (in Plato's cave allegory primal reality is the idea casting an illusory shadow on the wall) isn't so important; the metaphysical split between the two realms is the main thing! ROG NOW RESPONDS: Yes, 'substance' was Aristotle's concept. Before this the Greeks had the concept of 'change' and the concept of 'being', and the concept of 'form'. After Aristotle came the concepts of 'elements and compounds', then the concept of 'molecules' , then the concept of atoms, then the concept of 'energy', and the concept of 'subatomic particles'. Next came the concept of 'probabilities, followed closely by the concept of 'quarks', then of 'fields', of 'interrelationships', and the current conceptual champion 'static patterns of value'. They are concepts. IPOV's. Ghosts. None even existed before their creation. And until the 20th century, the great minds actually even believed that these concepts were real and 'out there'. Replacing Aristotle's substance for subatomic fields, or replacing charriot-driving angels with gravity doesn't elevate us above the intellectual level. It just allows us to gain in quality. We have more elegant, more explanatory, more consistent theories. And if history is any indication, this one will be transient too. No Bo, substance was never 'out there' (or 'in there') for Aristotle. It was always a theory, and it still is. It's just not a very good one any more. BO: The reason for my stressing that Q-intellect is not mind, but rather the mind/matter AGGREGATE, is that (as I see the MOQ) the barking or whinnying forms aren't DYNAMIC reality until a human being comes along and "gives names to all the animals". They are Biological patterns grandparent of Intellectual patterns! ROG: I have read and re-read this a dozen times, and my only explanation is that you mistyped this. Surely you mean "Dynamic reality only becomes biological patterns after a human being differentiates, segments, conceptualizes and names them." Right? Biological patterns are just cuts of the intellectual knife. Biology is derived of the intellect, not vice versa. So where does intellect, the 'great conceptualizer' come from? From Quality. From pure direct Dynamic and flowing reality. And when it emerged, it named the social llevel, and it named language and it even named itself. It differentiated, conceptualized and named 'substance' and 'dogs.' A very neat and useful trick. But it was all a pale shadow of the flowing undivided Dynamic reality of experience from which it arose. (Remember, reality is not 'things', it is events, or pure non-subjective experience.) Bo: When concluding as I will below I appeal to your collective goodwill. Theorizing, naming - thinking - about animals and things even about thinking itself - is not going on in an abstract sphere about something more real in another concrete sphere. Q- INTELLECT IS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE BI-SPHERIC DISTINCTION ITSELF. The highest and most valuable stage that evolution has reached - yet. ROG: Now here I agree 100% I don't see how it goes with what you wrote before. BO: My thesis is still that Intellect is SOM, but your "..judged by quality.." bit may bridge the gap between us. SOM-as-Q-Intellect immediately strips it of its METAPHYSICAL status. The division, be it idea/shadow, substance/form, words/reality, mind/matter ..whatever, is seen as the highest STATIC realm, but no longer as how existence is constructed. For us MOQ followers the present construct is the DQ/SQ split and that is not remotely related with those. ROG: As Marco stated, the DQ/sq split itself is an intellectual pattern. What else could it be? We created thi
Re: LS is intellect its own level?
Hi Squad,
Bo, I'd really want to convince you about dropping the SOLAQI
idea. It gives too much importance to the S/O split, and needlessly
restrains our grasp of Intellect. My last post [ SOLAQI? Why not ?]
gives the S/O split its right (good) place, I believe.
If Subjects and Objects are fundamental, then I might just as well throw
Pirsig's books out by the window, because my only chance to ever see a
world mindfull of Quality is to become a mystic somewhere in the
Himalayas. I'll develop :
B. Skutvik wrote:
> If the first MOQ axiom of everything being value is heeded everything
> should be OK, but up through LS' life there have been tendencies to
> shift the metaphysical split away from the DQ/SQ position over to the
> 'dog'/animal example. When you [ROGER] write:
>
> > As I stated in my post of Sept 5th, this idealism issue is critical when
> > getting our minds around the intellectual level and the ramifications of the
> > logos. As long as we continue mistaking our words and concepts for "primal
> > reality" we continue to live in Aristotle's world. I wrote:
>
> I am not convinced that you pay Aristotle full justice. HE did not
> mistake words and concepts for primal reality, inspired by Plato he
> created the distinction between substance and form; idea and
> illusion. The fact that his 'substance' was reality and 'form'
> the actual animal (in Plato's cave allegory primal reality is the
> idea casting an illusory shadow on the wall) isn't so important; the
> metaphysical split between the two realms is the main thing!
>
You miss a point here, I believe. You are right, Aristotle thought
substance was reality. The problem here is that we never experience
substance. It's a problem he knew about. It is the first decisive
mind/matter split, the divorce between us and reality. Under those
terms, Reality is something we will never experience *directly*. So how
could we say anything about it ?
The answer to this problem is in the Forms. They could be named,
classified and explained. A metaphysics was just that : Meta-physics.
Physics at a meta-level. By creating an analogue of physics (an analogue
of Substance), the reality could be understood.
I object to the idea that Aritotle thought Forms were an illusion ! He
thought they were real !
We could not experience what was IN them (substance), but the Forms
COULD be experienced ! It is the basis of empiricism. When things were
said about the Forms, then they became objects of dialectical
discussion, and their objective worth (whether they were true or false)
could be ascertained. Once all Forms were classified, their functions
and relationships determined by logical reasoning, the end product would
be the TRUTH ! A identical image of reality, the objective map of it !
Thus would be the mind/matter division not abolished but bridged.
> The reason for my stressing that Q-intellect is not mind, but rather
> the mind/matter AGGREGATE, is that (as I see the MOQ) the barking or
> whinnying forms aren't DYNAMIC reality until a human being comes
> along and "gives names to all the animals". They are Biological
> patterns grandparent of Intellectual patterns!
>
> Look, it's not only 'dog' or 'horse' that are words, so if language
> is on the other side of a metaphysical fence the rest is silence.
> But as Denis pointed out, language plays an important role in the
> forming of the Q-Intellect, but is not IT. Rather - as he also
> pointed out - the "machine code" between Q-society and Q-intellect
> ("the DNA of Intellect". Very good!). Its notorious subject/object
> nature slowly caused the conviction that the split between words and
> the real thing was existence itself and - Voila, le SOM meme!
> (supposed to be French: Look, the SOM incarnate)
>
I'll restate it once again, the S/O split ISN'T a characteristic of
Language. The characteristic of Language is that it makes DISTINCTIONS.
DQ and SQ is such a distinction, maya and dharma another, Ideas and
Appearances a third. Hell, to differenciate dogs from wolves is a
fourth, and I could go on forever like this. DEFINITION, as Marco
pointed out, is to give a border to something. It's about making
distinctions.
Subject and Object only come into being when someone decides that
the world is made of Substance and Forms, Matter-like stuff and
Mind-like stuff. Then, and only then can a Subject (a mind) perceive an
Object (a Form) and make objective statements about it. If he says
things about stuff that's only in his mind, THEN it's a subjective
statement. That's how Aristotle trashed Plato's Idealism.
> When concluding as I will below I appeal to your collective goodwill.
> Theorizing, naming - thinking - about animals and things even about
> thinking itself - is not going on in an abstract sphere about
> something more real in another concrete sphere. Q- INTELLECT IS THE
> ABILITY TO MAKE THE BI-SPHERIC DISTINCTION ITSELF. The highest and
> most valuable stage that evolution has reached - yet.
>
LANG
Re: LS is intellect its own level?
THIS MONTH HAS ENTERED ITS FINAL AND A CONSENSUS LOOKS POSSIBLE. BO
WILL TRY TO IRON OUT THE LAST WRINKLES, STARTING WITH ROGER PALMER
WHO WROTE:
> ROGER'S COMMENTARY:
> Exactly!!! Go Denis
> When you say 'dog' no dogs come out of your mouth! The dog you think of and
> the dog we discuss are both just abstractions of a dog. Pirsig and Denis are
> not stating that no 'external' reality, or dog, exists, they are stating that
> it is Quality. The levels are intellectual patterns. Part of this
> intellectual description of reality has the intellect emerging out of society
> and biology. However, we must never forget that this is all an intellectual
> pattern itself. When we say 'social level', no religions and governments
> come out of our mouth. Intellectual patterns arise from Quality. We have all
> agreed to call this particular class or abstraction of Quality 'the social
> level'. But the reality of this Quality is infinitely richer and more
> dynamic than our static concepts can ever capture.
> A lot of members have problems with the recursiveness of this issue, but I
> strongly urge them to spend an hour or two contemplating it. It opens up
> entire new vistas into the meaning and the brilliance of the MOQ.
> Comments, Bo? David?
Hi Roger and Lilasq.
There is possibly another Denis paper in progress so I will just
address the above difference so well summarized by you.
Anyone objecting to the statement of "no dogs coming out of your
mouth" could be certified and I appeal to your lenience when
forwarding my case :-).
If the first MOQ axiom of everything being value is heeded everything
should be OK, but up through LS' life there have been tendencies to
shift the metaphysical split away from the DQ/SQ position over to the
'dog'/animal example. When you write:
> As I stated in my post of Sept 5th, this idealism issue is critical when
> getting our minds around the intellectual level and the ramifications of the
> logos. As long as we continue mistaking our words and concepts for "primal
> reality" we continue to live in Aristotle's world. I wrote:
I am not convinced that you pay Aristotle full justice. HE did not
mistake words and concepts for primal reality, inspired by Plato he
created the distinction between substance and form; idea and
illusion. The fact that his 'substance' was reality and 'form'
the actual animal (in Plato's cave allegory primal reality is the
idea casting an illusory shadow on the wall) isn't so important; the
metaphysical split between the two realms is the main thing!
The reason for my stressing that Q-intellect is not mind, but rather
the mind/matter AGGREGATE, is that (as I see the MOQ) the barking or
whinnying forms aren't DYNAMIC reality until a human being comes
along and "gives names to all the animals". They are Biological
patterns grandparent of Intellectual patterns!
Look, it's not only 'dog' or 'horse' that are words, so if language
is on the other side of a metaphysical fence the rest is silence.
But as Denis pointed out, language plays an important role in the
forming of the Q-Intellect, but is not IT. Rather - as he also
pointed out - the "machine code" between Q-society and Q-intellect
("the DNA of Intellect". Very good!). Its notorious subject/object
nature slowly caused the conviction that the split between words and
the real thing was existence itself and - Voila, le SOM meme!
(supposed to be French: Look, the SOM incarnate)
When concluding as I will below I appeal to your collective goodwill.
Theorizing, naming - thinking - about animals and things even about
thinking itself - is not going on in an abstract sphere about
something more real in another concrete sphere. Q- INTELLECT IS THE
ABILITY TO MAKE THE BI-SPHERIC DISTINCTION ITSELF. The highest and
most valuable stage that evolution has reached - yet.
Roger continues:
> BO:
> The reason I cannot think of SOM as being equal to the Q-Intellect is
> that it is already too perfect, too developped to be a good candidate
> for the post. So I've got to find a good (even if it's a little loosely
> defined) one. Language seems to be such a candidate for many people.
> It's supposed to be different from society, but is it ? Bees
> communicate, wolves do too, but that's not language they're using. So
> what is language ? I'll give you a linguist definition.
but this is not me, rather Denis, so I'll let it rest until
further notice ;-). The following:
> Let me again cut and paste from my post on the 5th:.
> ".to study man and his world, you must study his language. Language is
> unique to man, and it allows a whole new world of attention, distinctions and
> couplings. In addition, the world that men bring forth together in shared
> language is a shared world.
> ... language is much more difficult than communication. Animals are
> frequent communicators, but they don't use language. Simply put, your cat
> can meow t
Re: LS is intellect its own level?
ROGER TRIES TO NUDGE THE GROUP TOWARD CONSENSUS ON THE ESSENTIAL COMPONENTS OF THE INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND THE HARMFUL EFFECTS OF SOM Bo and Denis and Lilacs; I hate to further add to Denis' growing ego, but I too must side strongly with his arguments. He has been doing so good that I have just been sitting back with silent nods, but I guess I should step in briefly with a public affirmation of agreement. Below is primarily a cut'n'paste of Bo, Denis and my posts. I hope to highlight the primary outstanding disagreements and lend my opinion on which is the highest quality description. (Sorry in advance if I deleted something critical in my quoting, I am trying to pare the arguments down to their essentials). I will start with Bo's concern with the following fundamental tenet of the MOQ as espoused by Denis. This is absolutely key in understanding the intellectual level and the MOQ, and of addressing Aristotle's big mistake.. DENIS: One recurring problem we seem to see in those discussions is the nature of the levels. I believe many people still see them as ontological "things", entities in their own right. This is not so. The levels are intellectual PoVs BO: Denis throws the baby out with the water: "The levels are intellectual PoVs" he declares and I get the feeling that they become SOM's subjects. In the mind!!!? The static levels are neither things nor intellect (in the mind). This is sorted out at a much earlier stage when P of LILA demonstrates that existence is VALUE. DENIS: I don't, and never will say that REALITY is in the mind, and only in the mind. I'm no solipsist. REALITY is Value, or QUALITY, I agree with Pirsig on that point, and therefore, ultimately unknowable. But when we talk about REALITY, when we enter this degenerate field of behaviour, all we are talking about is how to classify our experiences as Intellectual Static Patterns of Value (Words, and other complex structures of meaning : sentences, equations, models, you name it). Therefore, even if what gives birth to the pictures we draw ISN'T intellectual (it's Quality), the pictures themselves are *nothing* but Intellectual Patterns of Value. Therefore, the levels being Structured Meanings describing REALITY, they ARE IntPoVs, and nothing is thrown out because according to MOQ, we know that REALITY/QUALITY is still there outside, waiting for us. ROGER"S COMMENTARY: As I stated in my post of Sept 5th, this idealism issue is critical when getting our minds around the intellectual level and the ramifications of the logos. As long as we continue mistaking our words and concepts for "primal reality" we continue to live in Aristotle's world. I wrote: ". Pirsig's ZMM talk of ghosts, his identification with pragmatic Radical Empiricism (only concepts are static -- reality is dynamic and flowing) make it clear that the world of distinctions and things are conceptualizations derived from the "primal reality" of Quality, which is inherently beyond knowledge. ...This reality we discuss involves our conceptualization of reality." But Denis summarizes it even better with this line.. DENIS: As one of my philosophy teachers said : "When you say "dog", no dogs come out of your mouth". When you say that there IS an inorganic level, what you are really saying is : "I'm classifying all those similar experiences into a class, an Intellectual Static Pattern, that I will therefore be able to talk about, and call that the Inorganic level. I do this because it is convenient, useful, and, quite frankly, because I think it is fun to do so. It has Dynamic Quality. But what is *really* out there is QUALITY." ROGER'S COMMENTARY: Exactly!!! Go Denis When you say 'dog' no dogs come out of your mouth! The dog you think of and the dog we discuss are both just abstractions of a dog. Pirsig and Denis are not stating that no 'external' reality, or dog, exists, they are stating that it is Quality. The levels are intellectual patterns. Part of this intellectual description of reality has the intellect emerging out of society and biology. However, we must never forget that this is all an intellectual pattern itself. When we say 'social level', no religions and governments come out of our mouth. Intellectual patterns arise from Quality. We have all agreed to call this particular class or abstraction of Quality 'the social level'. But the reality of this Quality is infinitely richer and more dynamic than our static concepts can ever capture. A lot of members have problems with the recursiveness of this issue, but I strongly urge them to spend an hour or two contemplating it. It opens up entire new vistas into the meaning and the brilliance of the MOQ. Comments, Bo? David? The other major issue is closely related to the first. It involves language and its role in the emergence of SOM and the intellectual level. DENIS: .the Q-Intellect is indeed capable of containing itself. Thi
Re: LS is intellect its own level?
Hi Bo and Squad, It seems Bodvar and I still have a bone to pick, and I'd like to make my position clear on his most pertinent critics : B. Skutvik wrote: > > Dear LilaSquad. > > DENIS POISSON started his impressive post of 14 September by > writing: > > > One recurring problem we seem to see in those discussions is the nature > > of the levels. I believe many people (as Glenn's post indicates) still > > see them as ontological "things", entities in their own right. > > This is not so. > > The levels are intellectual PoVs..snip > > I agree about the problem of seeing the static levels the way that > Glenn does: Q-Biology as composed of matter atoms in SOM's objective > sense. But to remedy this Denis throws the baby out with the water: > "The levels are intellectual PoVs" he declares and I get the feeling > that they become SOM's subjects. In the mind!!!? > > The static levels are neither things nor intellect (in the mind). > This is sorted out at a much earlier stage when P of LILA > demonstrates that existence is VALUE. One may be sceptical to his > proofs, but if you accept them you have entered the Q universe > and the nature of the levels are no bones of contention. > Bo, I don't, and never will say that REALITY is in the mind, and only in the mind. I'm no solipsist. REALITY is Value, or QUALITY, I agree with Pirsig on that point, and therefore, ultimately unknowable. It is the ongoing process of existence, and only by mystic apprehension can this be really understood, even if the notion of *knowing* seems sorely inappropriate for this kind of revelation. Perhaps saying that one *becomes* QUALITY would be a closer shot for describing this mystic process. But when we talk about REALITY, when we enter this degenerate field of behaviour, all we are talking about is how to classify our experiences as Intellectual Static Patterns of Value (Words, and other complex structures of meaning : sentences, equations, models, you name it). Therefore, even if what gives birth to the pictures we draw ISN'T intellectual (it's Quality), the pictures themselves are *nothing* but Intellectual Patterns of Value. Therefore, the levels being Structured Meanings describing REALITY, they ARE IntPoVs, and nothing is thrown out because according to MOQ, we know that REALITY/QUALITY is still there outside, waiting for us. As one of my philosophy teachers said : "When you say "dog", no dogs come out of your mouth". When you say that there IS an inorganic level, what you are really saying is : "I'm classifying all those similar experiences into a class, an Intellectual Static Pattern, that I will therefore be able to talk about, and call that the Inorganic level. I do this because it is convenient, useful, and, quite frankly, because I think it is fun to do so. It has Dynamic Quality. But what is *really* out there is QUALITY." > Remember the figure of gestalt psychology that can be seen as > either a black vase or two white faces. One can alternate between the > two but it's impossible to see both simultaneously. The talk > about Q-Intellect as a level where the rest of the Q-levels reside, > in addition to itself - and the SOM for good measure - > is to give the impression that one hovers at a meta-metaphysical > stage where the two are viewed "objectively", but it's an illusion. > Well, I don't really understand what you are saying about Q-Intellect and SOM being viewed "objectively" (wasn't this term scraped long ago along with SOM ?) but I think my second post will make it clear why the Q-Intellect is indeed capable of containing itself. This, as Magnus (thanks for the initial insight, BTW, I found it very valuable) and myself clearly demonstrated, is a function, a characteristic of language, the DNA of Intellect. Since any assertion (Intellectual Pattern of Value) can be talked about, analysed and criticized, the Intellectual level is indeed capable of recursive operations. SOM made the first recursive step by defining Meaning, the bare bricks of Language and Intellect, and MOQ the second recursive step by defining Metaphysics, the houses in the Intellect City. To prove my point I'll quote our master, of whom we're all disciples, Robert M. Pirsig (and I'll note how many disagree with this by shouting loud how their mind's their own, etc. ;). He really had it all figured out, you know. This is taken from 'Lila', chp. 8, p114 (brackets indicate my adjuncts) : "If subjects and objects are held to be the ultimate reality [and meaning is characterized according to Truth] then we're permitted only one construction of things [one metaphysics] - that which corresponds to the "objective world" - and all other constructions are unreal [the subjective field being for assertions that cannot be proven true or false, the unexpressed bias being that such assertions are valueless]. But if Quality or excellence is seen as the ultimate reality then it becomes possible for more than one set of truths [more than one meta
Re: LS is intellect its own level?
Dear LilaSquad. DENIS POISSON started his impressive post of 14 September by writing: > One recurring problem we seem to see in those discussions is the nature > of the levels. I believe many people (as Glenn's post indicates) still > see them as ontological "things", entities in their own right. > This is not so. > The levels are intellectual PoVs..snip I agree about the problem of seeing the static levels the way that Glenn does: Q-Biology as composed of matter atoms in SOM's objective sense. But to remedy this Denis throws the baby out with the water: "The levels are intellectual PoVs" he declares and I get the feeling that they become SOM's subjects. In the mind!!!? The static levels are neither things nor intellect (in the mind). This is sorted out at a much earlier stage when P of LILA demonstrates that existence is VALUE. One may be sceptical to his proofs, but if you accept them you have entered the Q universe and the nature of the levels are no bones of contention. Remember the figure of gestalt psychology that can be seen as either a black vase or two white faces. One can alternate between the two but it's impossible to see both simultaneously. The talk about Q-Intellect as a level where the rest of the Q-levels reside, in addition to itself - and the SOM for good measure - is to give the impression that one hovers at a meta-metaphysical stage where the two are viewed "objectively", but it's an illusion. This much said, the rest of Denis post is excellent - even if he doesn't buy my SOM as Q-Intellect idea. Or does he? > The reason I cannot think of SOM as being equal to the Q-Intellect is > that it is already too perfect, too developped to be a good candidate > for the post. So I've got to find a good (even if it's a little loosely > defined) one. Language seems to be such a candidate for many people. > It's supposed to be different from society, but is it ? Bees > communicate, wolves do too, but that's not language they're using. So > what is language ? I'll give you a linguist definition. Yes SOM is well developed, but I can't see that as an objection, to the contrary: Its division dominates our outlook. Denis introduces language as the candidate for Q- Intellect, and his linguist lecture is good. Splendid! Human - symbolic - language as different from other means of communication; the semantic vs phonetic..etc. Perfect! My own "abstraction" that I wrote about to Diana has much in common with it, and I wonder if Denis knows Charles Peirce's Semiosis (sign) metaphysics? But after a while he rejects his candidate: > But then, language isn't the same as the Intellectual level. It would be > like saying that DNA *is* the Biological level. It isn't. DNA is a > molecule. Combined with RNA and other molecules, and contained within a > cell it is able to replicate itself and evolve, it's the biological > information carrier (pattern-carrier if you want), but it's not > Q-Biology. and reintroduces it in another role > OK, let's say that language is the machine code of the Q-Intellect. It > conveys information (static intellectual value), has the possibility to > replicate itself, and to evolve in response to Dynamic Quality. Yes, this is important. The"machine code" metaphor as P used it was the isthmus between soft- and hardware in a computer, so the way we may see language is as an isthmus between Society and Intellect. (DNA as the one between Inorganic and Organic) It was the social tool that "took off on a purpose of its own" and grew through the millennia and - at the early Greek thinkers time took the final step to free itself from its parent level. Language gives the impression of a mind realm where abstract concepts can be juggled by the semantic rules and this abstract realm contrasted with the concrete realm has created the Subject-Object metaphysics. Denis presents HIS vision Q-Intellect: > So what is the Q-Intellect ? Try this : it is the greater patterns in > which static intellectual patterns organize themselves. Hierarchies, > relations, similarities, opposites, functions. A metaphysics. We define > the ontology (Ideas and Appearances, Substance and Forms, four classes > of Static Patterns of Value, Spirits and Elements, Yin and Yang), then > the relationships between things. and is somehow back into his - um - mindlike intellect where all these patterns organize themselves. Even SOM (See below) and the Q-levels. Yet, I find Denis' so interesting that I can't but think he is on the brink of ..something (I almost wrote "understanding" :-)). " He examines SOM: > What is SOM ? A metaphysics with great Dynamic potential. It created > guidelines to access high-Quality intellectual patterns, defining > Quality as Good Intellectual patterns : Truth Yes, yes, the Q-idea springs from SOM; it is DQ's attempt to free itself from it's own latest static latch. But once evolution - even from a new and unsafe position - ha
Re: LS is intellect its own level?
Denis > OK, let's say that language is the machine code of the Q-Intellect. It > conveys information (static intellectual value), has the possibility to > replicate itself, and to evolve in response to Dynamic Quality. > > So what is the Q-Intellect ? Try this : it is the greater patterns in > which static intellectual patterns organize themselves. Hierarchies, > relations, similarities, opposites, functions. A metaphysics. We define > the ontology (Ideas and Appearances, Substance and Forms, four classes > of Static Patterns of Value, Spirits and Elements, Yin and Yang), then > the relationships between things. > > What is SOM ? A metaphysics with great Dynamic potential. It created > guidelines to access high-Quality intellectual patterns, defining > Quality as Good Intellectual patterns : Truth. > > So, the battle between the Sophists and Plato was already on the > Intellectual level, it was a battle between two different world-views, > two metaphysics, which *are* intellectual patterns. > > The Q-Intellect as I see it now is the ecosystem in which competing > metaphysics vie for dominance, just as different species vie for > resources in Earth biosphere. The most dynamic ones make it to the top, > the others don't. > > The real metaphysics of the Sophists is now lost to us, except for its > central tenet : Arete. Its greatest tool, rhetoric (its replicative > system, we could say) lost its battle with dialectics. Perhaps its > ontology wasn't good enough, didn't include enough of the world. Perhaps > it was too centered on the social level and lost because SOM had a > better grip upon the intellectual level. Who knows ? > > Now MOQ has a chance to dethrone it. Its grip on all four levels is the > best one I've found yet. So what do you think ? You nailed it! End of thread! Break's over, go back to your school work. DLT MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
Re: LS is intellect its own level?
Hi, Squad ! I can't really participate in this month's discussion because I'm (still!) trying to finish my university degree. Nevertheless, just now I'm fed up with it so I'm going to use this post as an excuse to get away from it all a little ;) One recurring problem we seem to see in those discussions is the nature of the levels. I believe many people (as Glenn's post indicates) still see them as ontological "things", entities in their own right. This is not so. The levels are intellectual PoVs. If you look at our planet, you can choose to define it by its mass, gravitionnal pull, magnetic field, density, or whatever. You can also choose to define it as a biological entity, in which case you'll be able to enumerate its different species, their interactions, etc. You can also choose to define it in a geopolitical fashion, describing the dominant nations, their respective economic weight, ressources, political systems and so on. Finally, you might decide to describe its intellectuals systems, its competing metaphysics, which ones are dominant, how they influence each other, making an "History of Ideas 101", so to speak. Each and every time, you'll miss something, because as Pirsig pointed out, each level interacts with the others. It doesn't mean that the levels are ontological "things", that then interact with one another. No, it means that whenever you try to describe something, you leave something out. That the reality we try to describe is made of interlocking patterns, which complexities are beyond anyone's abilities to completely unravel (that's the positivists' illusion). No perfect metaphysics. All we ever do is take a handful of sand from this beach, and call it reality. Because we need to pay attention to this handful of sand. Because if we don't, we're going to die. Necessity is the primary mover in this process. To come back to Glenn's post, and remembering that the IntPoVs I'm about to present are *tricks* (good ones I hope) to get things done (like convincing you I'm right ;), I want to say that as Bo points out, societies aren't composed of individuals any more than Q-Intellect is composed of societies. Societies are composed of behaviours, which are biological, and which are a support for new patterns, social patterns. In this way, just as DNA molecules carry biological informations, giving birth to the bio level, the repetitive patterns of behaviour carry social information, then giving birth to societies. This information is carried on a bio support (organisms), but isn't equal to them. Bacterias are an example of bio patterns carrying no other informations than biological ones. Most evolved bio patterns also carry behavioural patterns, which are in my opinion the machine-code of the social level. The reason I cannot think of SOM as being equal to the Q-Intellect is that it is already too perfect, too developped to be a good candidate for the post. So I've got to find a good (even if it's a little loosely defined) one. Language seems to be such a candidate for many people. It's supposed to be different from society, but is it ? Bees communicate, wolves do too, but that's not language they're using. So what is language ? I'll give you a linguist definition. Language must be distinguished from languages, in that it refer specifically to the phenomenom of human communication, as opposed to the many communications codes (french, english, german and so on) known to humans. The traits that are specific to language description are : 1. stratification : languages have two levels, a phenomenal one and a semantic one. That's no different from most animal languages. A sign is composed of a signifying part and a signified part. In human languages the signifying part (the support for meaning, the signified part) is phonetic, made of sounds. 2. double articulation : this is where animals and human differ. "Articulate" here refers to "divided into parts". When both levels of human language are divided into parts, we end up with two types of units : a) double-sided units, with a phonetic component and a semantic one : words. b) one-sided units, with only a phonetic component : phonems (/s/ like in [s]ide, [s]aw, [s]lip,[sc]ythe, /k/ like in [c]aporal, /a/, etc.). The number of phonems contained in a specific language varies (36 in french, generally between 20 and 50). Combining those units allows one to forms complex sounds -> words. All animal languages have parallel articulation. One sound -> one meaning. There are no sounds or signs without significations (to our knowledge) in animal "languages" that combined with other sounds would create a meaningful sign. That's for the official definition, but let me go a bit further. One important distinction here is made between the phenomenal and the non-phenomenal. This (official, remember) definition positively smacks of mind/matter division. Sounds and meaning are differentiated, but as we cannot (yet) decipher the complex communicati
Re: LS is intellect its own level?
Glenn Bradford and Squad. Welcome to the discussion Glenn. You opened like this: > Lila squaders!! > I'm happy to be joining you as a new member and this is my first post. > This month's program asks, in part:. > In answering this question we will have to examine both the subject-object > metaphysics and the intellectual level and find out what they are.. ...snip > cells are composed of atoms. animals are composed of cells. > societies are composed of animals. But intellect is not composed of societies; > at least Pirsig never says so.. ...snip > I would modify the MOQ to say that: ...snip snip. What I say is with a wink of eye, but why is it that so many enter because they see some paradox in the MOQ and proffer a modification? My own SOLAQI is no modification only a necessary conclusion - of course . That much said I found your entry very good and well founded. Trouble with the Q-Intellect is not unusual and the paradoxical sentences about societies vs individuals in connection with individuals as carriers of intellect have been raised before many times. This month we discuss what MOQ interpretation we are to give the Greek experience so I suggest we leave your general modification of the MOQ to another topic or forum. It's not that it lacks interest (too much aamof), but let's not stretch our host's good will too far :-). Your point is that Q-Intellect is not composed of societies the way that the lower levels are made up of the one below. This is no difficulty within the MOQ, but results from a SOM leftover. A stone is composed of atoms and yet no value rise from the Inorganic universe. Cells are such a step into a new value realm; some new PRINCIPLE. However, the lumping together of cells (organs) aren't societies until under a yet greater value "umbrella". Already at the Q-Society the composition metaphor fails, even more so at the Q-Intellect where the building blocks aren't societies (as such) but the social - um - value. No, there is no internal contradiction in the Q-ladder system once you grasp the metaphysical implications. You are right, however, in saying that the top rung is so near and dear that we have difficulties in seeing its outline. My SOM=Intellect idea is an attempt to lift ourselves above the treetops to see the forest. Yours sincerely Bo ["Quality isn't IN the eye of the beholder. Quality IS the eye of the beholder". (Platt Holden)] MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
