Bo, Ron, Thanks for bringing that Pirsig phrase in Paul's letter to my attention. Don't know why I've never noticed its significance before.
In his physio / bio / socio / intellectual patterns ontology he is "drawing lines" - for pragmatic reasons to make history useful to future progress - he is not saying - these lines / distinctions are "fundamental" or well defined beyond his deemed usefulness. Like any good ontology in fact. Debate about defintitions is breath wasted. Bo's contention of intellect as SOMism, is fine in terms of historical received wisdom, may even be what Pirsig meant too, if that makes Bo feel better. But none of that says we cannot posit a "new intellect" based on MOQism itelf - whether we develop our understanding of level 3/4 to include that or posit a level 5 is a purely pragmatic convenience. Evolution is unstoppable. Ian On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bo: > As Pirsig says (in the PT letter) a line must be drawn somewhere > for the social level lest it becomes useless (its biological roots > show) as must be done for intellect, and he actually draws its line > with the Greek thinkers (in MOQ this means SOM), but then he > possibly saw the SOL implication and hastily added the cryptic > "Oriental Intellect". > 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/
