Greetings Ron On 7 March you wrote:
> Before we start out, know that I am of honest mind, I think you may > really Have something with your concepts, but it would be > unconscionable to not Point out what I think are some things to > consider. I believe you. > Ron: > I Quote Pirsig, which I obtained from yourself. Those are his words > Aren't they? > LILA: > > > The CULTURE in which we live, hands us a set of intellectual > > > glasses to interpret experience with, and the concept of the > > > primacy of subjects and objects is built right into these > > > glasses. Yes, they are Pirsig's words, but he might as well has said "The times in which we live ...etc. Thus "culture" has no specific significance. However, I have never denied that I think Pirsig did the MOQ a disservice by backing down from ZAMM's "intellect" (the S/O divide) to the vague variety of LILA. Yet, the original S/O intellect shines through when Pirsig writes naturally, it's plain that in the above quote he really says: "The intellect-shaped culture in which we live ....etc. " Bo before: > > This is a bit like LILA (in places) where the 4th. level is presented as > > an mind-like realm that became fed the SOM and if the MOQ idea is fed > > it, it will press SOM down into oblivion. Ron: > This is the view, but SOM is embedded it may be appended but > Never pressed to oblivion as long as the culture exists > Using the same languages. You may have misunderstood, my above was a presentation of the "impossible" 4th. level that LILA presents. SOM IS the 4th. level (robbed of its "M" it no longer represents a faulty metaphysics but the highest static value. Ron: > I have come to the conclusion that human language, individuals and > society Create themselves, the language that a society creates is > directly Indicative of how they think and view the world. English has > three Cases, subject, object and predicate. I think Chinese has 26 > cases. This influences how concepts are formed how value is > established thus The basis for a logic and a reason defined within. If > there is no case For the concept of "self" which I think Asian > languages are peculiarly Absent of, how can the basis of a subject be > formed intellectually? I don't know what conclusion is to be drawn from this? That language constitutes reality? Then a metaphysics of language is required, but if has the same Dynamic/Static language split and the same four static language levels nothing is gained. Ron: > But if "culture hands us a set of intellectual glasses to interpret > experience with" (Pirsigs words) "with s/o built in" it's metaphor > all the way down. As said he may as well have said "The times hands us ... " but the point is that it's the INTELLECTUAL glasses" that splits S/O, but trust Pirsig to avoid the SOL (not that he knew any SOL at the time of writing LILA, but its logic must have breathed down his neck). > What we experience as reality is a combination of patterns of value and > socially conditioned perception and understanding. Where the metaphor issue enters is beyond me. There is no "combination" of anything. What was substance in SOM is "inorganic patterns of value" in the MOQ. Organisms are "biological ...", communities are "social ..." and (intellect is intellect is a bit glib) the S/O and all its derivatives are "intellectual patterns of value" > If you name SOM as intellectual you are naming SOM as reality itself > for human beings. How you draw these outlandish conclusions I don't know, but I guess it's the intellectual=intelligence fallacy. An - um - culture may not have arrived at (not embraced it at least) the intellectual level, yet, the individual may be as intelligent as any. > Pirsig says this is a no-no. but this is where you and Pirsig part > ways. Pirsig says "no" on the ground that "there are intellectual patterns with no S/O content", but this is tail-chasing. If intellect is mere thinking there surely is no-S/O patterns, but ... phew, can't go into all that. > Your interpretation seeks a 5th level because it does not Account for > reality outside of the human perception of it. Yet all the fingers > point to it, which has you stumped. The 5th level will haunt me forever it seems. Do you know Godel's Theorem? No system can be totally closed, they all require a "God'seye" view from the outside, and the meta-level of the MOQ is needed to see the Quality Universe. 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/
