Bo, DMB, Bo it seems to me he's evading giving you the answer you want to hear, but is patently clear that he does NOT intend the 4th / intellectual level to be seen simply as SOM, not even historically.
In fact he's confirming what several have been asserting on here ... that SOM pervades the social level too. The fact he avoids giving (in that letter) any clearer indication of what intellect actually is, suggests as DMB did recently that we "know" the social / intellectual differences (pragmatically) but really do not have any definitive distinction. (This is entirely consistent with my own preferred view ... but that's another story.) Ian On Nov 23, 2007 4:06 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi DMB and absolutely all MOQists! > > On 18 Nov. you said (to me): > > > You think Pirsig's letter to Paul was "a masterpiece of evasion"? I > > think that's ironic and that you are unreasonable on this topic. > > I a writing frenzy I found this "old" post of yours, possibly not > meant to be replied but I can't let go this topic. As you will > remember the letter answered Paul's inquiry about the infamous > 4th level. This is the most evasive part. > > But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one > studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the > intellectual level is conspicuously absent. The world is > ruled by Gods who follow social and biological patterns > and nothing else. > > Wish I were ironic and unreasonable, but it's just sadly true. If > Pirsigs sees the intellectual level as absent he does know what > the intellectual level is. Doesn't he ? What is missing is SOM, > that is plain as day and I thought I finally had the intellect issue > cornered and wrote to inquire and got this reply. > > "I suspect you want to hear that what is "conspicuously > absent" is SOM, but I am not sure that SOM was absent > in early Biblical times since early social statements such > as "Beware of the crocodile!" or "Javeh will reward you", > are SOM but are not intellectual in the MOQ sense. > > He clearly saw the trap, but couldn't admit the obvious. The > crocodile warning as SOM is bad enough from the author of > ZAMM who wrote so splendidly and convincingly about SOM, but > then he makes the same strange exercise; He seemingly knows > what "intellectual in the MOQ sense" is, so why not tell us? It's > absolutely maddening. Well, I know I'm crying in the wilderness. > > Thanksgiving all the same, > > Bo > > > > > > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/ > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
