Hi Bo, Steve: >> I don't know what your S/O level could mean as a type of pattern of >> value. ....
Bo: >SOL just mean that the intellectual level is the S/O distinction or >aggregate. Steve: Then what is an "S/O distinction pattern of value"? Can that be interpreted as a pattern of thought with a certain underlying premise? Bo: >This is what Pirsig affirms in the P.Turner letter. > > I think the same happens to the term, > "intellectual," when one extends it much before > the Ancient Greeks.* > >"Ancient Greeks" means SOM in a MOQ context. He drags his >feet by "not much before", still it means that the emergence of >SOM is the emergence of the intellectual level. Steve: He has said before that intellectual patterns have been around since the beginning of history. I think what we have in the ancient Greeks is the first time where intellectual values were codified and ran into conflict with social values. But I could be wrong not being an ancient Greek myself. >Steve: >> The intellectual level as the collection of all patterns of thought >> (ideas, rationales) seems clear to me. Bo: >So when a Stone Ager looked up in the sky and THOUGHT about >all those gods and goddesses who shone forth up there ... this >was intellectualization. Phew? Steve: I don't know what was going on in your hypothetical stone ager. Pirsig suggests that such people's lives were dominated by ritual (social patterns) and probably didn't do a lot of gazing up at the stars and wondering what he gods were up to. But if one of these guys thought to himself, "I wonder if the gods will be happy and make it rain if I cut off my pinky toe," then I would say that he is participating in a rudimentary intellectual pattern involving cause and effect. Bo: >"Rationales" on the other hand are definitely S/O >(objectivizations). Your "ideas" may also be understood in this >"rational" manner and if so all is well, but the "intelligence" fallacy >lurks under your utterings. Steve: I'm glad that we are not as far off as it seemed to me. >Bo had said: >> >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. Bo: >Really? You sure it's not the well known tactics of faking >bewilderment? Do you refute the MOQ tenet of people being >made up of value levels? That an "intellectual" (a professor f.ex.) >is also a social being and a biological organism .. made up of >inorganic matter? Or what's the difficulty? Steve: I know what you mean, but I'm not doing that thing. I guess the part that is the biggest source of confusion above is "his weird notion that the static intellectual level is malleable." 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/
