Hi Steve
On 19 Feb. wrote:
Bo had said:
> > Thinking as different from what thinking is about a is part of
> > SOM.
Steve:
> Here is where we part company. I don't think that Pirsig is railing
> against SOM because of it's distinction between symbol and what is
> symbolized. I don't think he wants to get rid of this distinction at
> all.
In ZAMM Pirsig railed forcefully against SOM, in LILA however
SOM is hardly mentioned, and in Lila's Child not at all, and in
later comments and letters SOM has grown something
completely nonsensical like the "Crocodile warning".
This is in step with (his) changing definition of "intellect". In
ZAMM it was the S/O distinction, while it in LILA it had grown into
some mind-like compartment where only some patterns -
"knowledge" and "science" - had forgotten their social origin, and
in LC he seems to have become an philosophical idealist
(Annotation 102)
"I see today more clearly than when i wrote the SODV
paper that the key to integrating the MOQ with science is
through philosophical idealism, which says that objects
grow out of ideas not the other way around ..."
This is horrible, ideas (subjects) and objects is supposed to be
Quality creations. OK, the latter-day Pirsig has gradually sold out
the MOQ.
Anyway you say you don't think Pirsig wants to get rid of this
(symbol/what's symbolized) distinction, but why save this S/O
except for the reason of his new (the definition of intellect)
blunder?
Steve:
> I don't think there is a fallacy in saying that people can make
> distinctions between subjects and objects and intellectual patterns
> and inorganic patterns without committing to SO Metaphysics.
I tried to relate the MOQ tenet that each level "hijacks" all
patterns of its parent and makes them its own. Thus the social
level adopted biology's intelligence (perhaps its "building block")
and when intellect took over the relay pin "thinking" (intelligence
+ language) followed into the 4th. level (perhaps its building
block).
Steve, do you see the logic (in spite of all my parentheses)?
"Thinking" (intelligence + language) is intellect's building block
(BB). But in the same sense that the carbon atom is biology's BB
yet having nothing to do with its value (life) thinking is intellect's
yet having nothing to do with intellect's value (the S/O
distinction)?
Steve:
> We can even talk about subjectivity and objectivity as Pirsig does in
> SODV without making the distinction fundamental to reality thanks to
> the MOQ context of value pattern levels.
Yes, the S/O distinction is just the intellectual level's STATIC
value while DQ/SQ is the fundamental split. No disagreement
here.
Steve:
> In the MOQ intellect is a type of pattern of value
Intellect is a static value level, full stop! Why this wist to it?
> and the MOQ itself is an intellectual pattern.
By no twist of logic can MOQ's DQ/SQ be a mere static pattern.
> There is no such thing as an MOQ pattern. In other words, I don't know
> what you are getting at.
The MOQ is the DQ/SQ divide and reality is now "patterned"
accordingly. Regardless if you "get it" or not.
IMO
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/
