> 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.
Bo: 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. " Ron: Yes but he clearly states that culture also shapes intellect. 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? Ron: 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: Exactly, this is my gripe with your SOM as intellect assertion As general evolution. The Gods eye view. Pirsig IS proposing A "metaphysics of language" an understanding of how languages Influence Structures of thought. Languages are composed of the value Systems of a society supplying a system of referents. 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. Bo: As said he may as well have said "The times hands us ... " but Ron: But he did'nt. He said the CULTURE hands us those glasses. Not Nature. Bo: 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). Ron: I really think there is a lot of evidence to the contrary, if a Homo sapien Grows up without social/cultural influence, they do not exhibit any sort Of intellectual capacity. Human beings are found in societies. Intellect Is found in societies. I really feel calling S/O the default human setting Is making quite a leap. By saying this you are stating that no other way Of perception may be attained for we are already receiving the most Accurate perception possible, which kinda shit cans half of lila And sort of destroys the concepts of MoQ's higher aspects of Quality. Ron prev: > What we experience as reality is a combination of patterns of value and > socially conditioned perception and understanding. Bo: 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" Ron: And that's the problem, you see the MoQ as solving by redefinition. You see it as representing a different kind of split, when there Is no split at all. When you can't see out side the logic of assuming Differentiation as a subject sensing objects relative to itself you are thinking in terms of language, SOM language. When you rationalize with subject object symbol context to understand and communicate relative data thinking in any other way seems absurd. This is how subtle it is. How deep it is and why aspects of what Pirsig is saying seems like contradictions. Bo: 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. Ron: Why not, seems to be the bone of contention. Ron: > 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. Bo: 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. Ron: Right, this why Pirsig leaves MoQ open to DQ. But warns that Even a gods eye view (MoQ) is still an interpretation and thus An intellectual pattern. The container logic creates the paradox. It assumes a container. If no system is ever closed, how is containment possible? Intellect is contained by perception. Perception is formed from society by the glasses it hands us. It supplies the Paradigm for distinction and effective Laws of description and manipulation of them. To insist that SOM is the ONLY method of perception Intellectually is assuming Human kind as the only Intelligence in the universe and our cultural way Is the only intelligent superior way of thinking. And as you say MoQ will take SOM's place as the elitist Assertion of Dominant thinking. (which does nothing for The problem) Bo, Your interpretation is still valid if you consider Pirsigs view Of SOM as one of many possible intellectual static paradigms. In fact it hedges all your bets, gives it a concrete base and solves The 5th level enigma. We agree The only way to access MoQ is through those SOM glasses Our culture hands us, you well can attest and so can I that S/o is built right in to them so much so that to be difficult as to NOT be able to see outside it. The very supporting systems Of thinking that require things to be assumed that way make it Impossible to logically resolve anything else. Therefore for Purposes of convenience , workability, comprehension and Employment it is reasonable to assume SOM as the intellectual level To engage MoQ as functionary. This is why I Inquired as to a possible Plan ie: ZMM-type workshops on Quality(I have ideas on this). On the other side of the coin, because this cultural paradigm shift Is considered it leaves the MoQ open to individual dynamic quality, Absolves you of the charge of defining quality in any sort of absolute way and the anthropomorphic assertions associated with it. Which this group attacks you on. It frees you of the container logic paradox, and cohesively combines The mystic with the pragmatic. Successfully incorporating general Evolutionary theory and freedom of individual value awareness. It establishes a relative frame of context. Once the MoQ paradigm reference is established it frees up the conversations To explore the possibilities rather than squabble over the discrepancies in interpretation. Then SOL may be free to evolve the MoQ instead of simply fight for the right to exist. 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/
