Tue, 4 Aug 1998 05:52:27 +0100
My head is spinning with Schumacher. I haven't finished the whole book
yet, but I'm thrilled by it all. It might be a conceptual jolt to say
inorganic = mineral
biological = plant
social = animal
intellectual = human
but it works, it fits, and all of his explanations could be Pirsig
about MoQ levels. Occam's Razor strikes again.
may i add that the shift from static to dynamic, in any level of
quality, is "spiritual" quality. it's hard for me to order
"intellectual quality" as a greater good than "inorganic quality", since
a pattern (inorganic quality) purely arises out of chaos. that
spiritual, dynamic shift from static chaotic quality to inorganic
quality is absolutely beautiful. Pirsig (and Maggie?) order the four
levels of quality to point out the "evolution" of dynamic quality. but
note: any static break toward dynamic quality has more value than static
quality at even the intellectual level.
I think I can agree with you without giving up the "fact" that the
level is more moral (important, whatever). Here's how:
DQ doesn't operate on the inorganic level any more. Not on this earth.
Although originally DQ operated directly on the inorganic level, it
any more. Inorganic patterns have been set. The inorganic world
those patterns EXCEPT within certain balance points-- certain protected
centers of biological beings. DQ needs that protection, which has grown
become the biological level.
I think this pattern continues all the way up,
I like what you said about the "spiritualness" of any static pattern
shifted dynamically, even low-level shifts. Let me suggest something
that "spiritualness". The "spiritualness" is not something inherent in
interaction of lower-level patterns. I'm going to propose that
"spiritualness" happens within the observer. It's actually a person's
perception shifting--DQ and/or intellectual quality reording a person's
internal stable social self.
I know that' s not what you said, so push back if you think I missed the
+ intellectual quality is the cognizance between one and one's self.
we big-brained humans know about intellect. but so does a dog that know
doesn't "like" its master to beat it. that would be a good example of a
society-intellectual quality shift. the dog and the master compose a
quality. the dog and its "feelings" compose an intellectual quality.
Good example. I would say that higher-order animals do experience raw
intellectual quality. They do not,however, have the particular social
biological patterns that allow them to share intellect with each other
the revolutionary way that humans do. It occurred to me, also, that
we think of the animal world, we most commonly think of animals most
ourselves (high on the evolutionary scale), or domesticated animals,
have a unique "protected" evolution, protected by the same human
that protects humans. Maybe we shouldn't consider these animals to be
representative of the "animal world"--the world of the social level.
consider them to be the exception, and not the rule, the dog's intellect
no longer a problem to MoQ.
Diana McPartlin wrote:
I would include thoughts as a kind of behavior so thoughts that we copy
perhaps copy themselves) from others are social patterns rather than
intellectual. Thus cultural values and behaviors are copied from one
to another without any reasoning at the intellectual level.
Many psychologists and educators consider "thought" to be non-verbal
and I consider speech to be a red flag that indicates human social
I like your breakdown of the differences.
> And Bo (is it pronounced "boo!"? I always thought it rhymed with toe)
> has argued that the intellectual level is the same as the SOM. I think
> he's probably right.
> The subject has to separate itself from the object
> in order to contemplate it. Social patterns are copied blind from one to
> another, there's no objectivity in them.
Perhaps the model for intellectual is Pirsig's card file. You have two
cards. You hold them up and say, "Which one goes first?"
Within social, there are cards also, but they come with their rank
labeled on them, so even though a comparison is made the outcome is
determined by the rank of the card, not by the decision of the holder.
Perhaps. I'm thinking about this.
I couldn't figure out what you meant by your name sounding startling.
mentioned "Boo", which is what kids say when they play at frightening
Actually, I heard it like she did (rhymes with 'toe'), and when I
what you were talking about, I made some connections to the American
where "Bo" is a name with pretty high social quality. It's short for
"Beauregard", which sounds pretentious, and is, but it's also
into a kind of slang word, with sexy connotations, as a girl's steady
boyfriend would be her "beau". If it implies anything, it implies a
good-looking hunk of a man. Nothing you have to worry about there.
In the South, "Bo" is such a common nickname, it's almost a word for
or "fellow" or "buddy". "Bodvar", on the other hand, is not an American
name at all, and until I met you, it had no connotations of any sort.
it's meaningful, but I kindof like Bo, myself. ;-)
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:37 CEST