Hi Bo:
>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. Bo: >In ZAMM Pirsig railed forcefully against SOM, in LILA however >SOM is hardly mentioned Steve: He only first coins the term SOM in Lila. I think he spends a lot of time arguing that SOM has significant problems so that he can introduce the MOQ as a solution. Bo: >This is in step with (his) changing definition of "intellect". In >ZAMM it was the S/O distinction Steve: When did Pirsig ever say that intellect is the S/O distinction? Bo: >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: If you don't find quality distinguishing symbols and what is symbolized I guess don't use this distinction. For me, I won't be scared of the word tiger, but if I see an actual tiger I'm going to run. >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. Bo: >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: I don't think there is such a thing as biology's intelligence. To talk about intellect in animals is not what people usually mean by intellectual and is certainly not how Pirsig uses the term in the MOQ. Bo: >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: You want to define each level as having one particular value while I think of the levels as types of patterns of value and I think this is how Pirsig defined the levels. This is explains why we see the SOL differently. To me (and I think for Pirsig), Quality is the same on all levels, there are just diferent types of patterns and one Value. By the way, in the Bo version of the MOQ, the biological level's value is life and the intellectual level's value is the S/O distinction. What are the inorganic and social level's values? 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/
