Hi Steve In my slow response to posts in this thread I haven't yet got out of the 10 December. Anyway at the said date you wrote:
> Hi Bo, > You said to DM: > > ... do you agree with my analysis of the said passage > > from LILA, that it (by many twists and turns) shows that SOM is the > > intellectual level? All of it, every last bit? > Similarly in Lila's Child you said, "A while back, we spoke about the > emergence of intellect and I said that in a way Subject/Object > Metaphysics could be seen as identical to the intellectual level of > the MOQ!" There are possibly one million more places I've said this. > As I'm sure you are aware, Pirsig responded to your equating the > intellectual level with SOM in Lila's Child: "43. This seems too > restrictive. It seems to exclude non-subject- object constructions > such as symbolic logic, higher mathematics, and computer languages > from the intellectual level and give them no home. And as many times have I commented this. First "symbolic logic" what exactly is that apart from normal logic? The like of 2+2=4? If so I think pre-4th. level people were aware of this fact. If Pirsig by this - and "higher mathematics" - means algebra or arithmetic (using letters instead of numbers) I think social age people also mastered this skill. And what is computer language other than .... just another language. What IS intellect, however, are the theorems and proofs that the Greek thinkers began constructing to show why these relationships were TRUE and objectively valid. The Babylonians and Egyptians used the relationship between the legs and hypotenuse in a right-angled triangles, but never knew or cared why it worked, with Pythagoras and Archimedes however ... All Pirsigs examples may be non-subject/object - that's correct - but then they are not intellectual patterns unless - and Pirsig notoriously falls prey to this - "intellect" is used in the most trite "logical thinking" sense. > Also the term quality as used in the MOQ would be excluded from the > intellectual level. Yes, this is correct and rightfully so. If Quality - the MOQ in other words - were an intellectual pattern it would violate his own container logic. > In fact the MOQ, which gives intellectual meaning to the term quality, > would also have to be excluded from the intellectual level. Here the MOQ has become something different from Quality, as if Quality is the "objective" reality and the MOQ (just) some "subjective" theory. Exactly the fault he pointed out in his dialogue with the other teachers in ZAMM. > If we just say the intellect is the manipulation of language-derived > symbols for experience these problems of excessive exclusion do not > seem to occur." This is the very same "logical thinking" definition that stretches back to long before the 4th. level .. by the logic of the MOQ. The correct intellectual definition is the realization of there being a S/O schism between symbols and the what they symbolize - the former subjective the latter objective The "objective" may not be concrete but another abstract as in case of the 2+2=4, but that does not matter. Abstract/concrete is BTW another S/O > How do you respond to his critique? I despair by Pirsig having written the "analyzed" passage in LILA where the true nature of the 4th level is revealed goes on to contradict it again and again. In the letter to Paul he ended in a despairing note about the "symbol manipulation" definition just being "bull". That really touched me, in addition he has said that if the SOL interpretation "has value it will percolate to the top" so he is no longer negative. 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/
