Hi Bo,
>Bo earlier: >> > I don't know what "problem" he refers to but "intellectual >> > justification of >> > existing social patterns" sounds weird. As Pirsig says a person >> > consists of all levels (at least in the Western world) and the >> > intellect will under no circumstances "justify" any social patterns. > >Steve: >> It's only because of your SOL interpretation that this sounds weird. >> If you think of the levels as types of patterns of value this makes >> perfect sense. > >Do I not support the notion of the levels as "types of patterns of >value"? Steve: It doesn't seem like it to me. I don't know what your S/O level could mean as a type of pattern of value. The intellectual level as thecollection of all patterns of thought (ideas, rationales) seems clear to me. Bo: >Moreover Pirsig's books reflects the SOL interpretation in >the portions that count, I have shown it again and again, but you >(all) just clam shut when the proofs become too overwhelming. >Would you like to open a discussion on it when you have a lull? Steve: What happens with me and your "proofs" is you use the MOQ language in such a strange way that I can't tell what you are talking about. Bo: >The intellectual level is static, meaning blind to the DQ/SQ >context, it's mission is to control the level below itself and so it >has done very well reflected for instance in the constitution of the >USA. But because it (before the MOQ) had no "level" above itself >to check its progress - merely being perceived as a freedom >movement that could grow into the heavens - it caused social >havoc. Steve: Taking the SOM perspective is to not see the evolutionary hierarchy of value patterns. Seeing that hierarchy is a better perspective that includes seeing the SOM perspective for what it is. I can go with you that far. Bo: >The intellectual/social struggle is part of the game and will go on >but until the MOQ is realized is dangerous. More than anything >this affirms the SOL, namely that the MOQ has a certain upper >level relationship regarding intellect. The latter cannot harbor a >patterns that limits itself, it is as absurd as the social level >spawning a pattern that limits social value. Well, society DID so >and that became the intellectual level, and it spawned one that >became the MOQ. > >In this quote Pirsig speaks of "intellectuals" who are people >focussed at the intellectual level, but consist of all levels. What >he asks is for these people to come down from their high perch >and employ their social sense, not that their intellectual part >should become "social". This is so obvious that I can't fathom >why you cling to this weird notion that the static intellectual level >is malleable. Well I only know too well, it results from your >fallacious "mind"-intellect which is SOM's last defence. Steve: I can't make much sense of the above. 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/
