Hi Bo, Steve: >> 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. >
Bo: >And as many times have I commented this. First "symbolic logic" >what exactly is that apart from normal logic? Steve: Symbolic logic is a lot of "p implies q and q implies r then p implies r" kind of stuff. talk about inverses, converses and contrapositives . Definitely intellectual activity in my book and I think in the common definition of intellect that Pirsig wants to use. Solving equations algebraically is also normally considered intellectual activity yet contains no subjects and objects. Bo: >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. Steve: This is circular reasoning since you determine what "social age people" and I suppose "intellectual age people" are based on your same SOL interpretation. (Are we in the intellectual age now? Cool!) Pirsig described people as composed of all four types of patterns plus the ability to respond to DQ. I take the social age to be a time when the social level value patterns took precedence over intellectual patterns, i.e., when the social good pertaining to an intellectual pattern was considered more important than it's intellectual truth. I don't think of it as some time when there were no intellectual patterns. Bo: >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. Steve: The MOQ has no problem with truth. Pirsig: >> Also the term quality as used in the MOQ would be excluded from the >> intellectual level. Bo: >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. > Steve: The MOQ says experience is Quality which can be thought of as divided into 4 types of static patterns of value and DQ. The MOQ is part of experience and therefore must fit into one or a combination of types of patterns of value. Pirsig: >> In fact the MOQ, which gives intellectual meaning to the term quality, >> would also have to be excluded from the intellectual level. Bo: >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. Steve: It is true. Quality is reality and the MOQ is a theory. I don't see any fault with saying so. Bo: >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. Steve: I don't see a necessity of SOM thinking in distinguishing symbols and what they symbolize. SOM is the western philosophical tradition. It is not all the world's thought. SOM is an issue of making subjective/objective knowledge and appearance/reality distinctions. Regards, Steve 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/
