Short answer Bo ... Yes I agree that understanding the intellectual level (I would say social and intellectual levels) is the crux of our difference. Has been for years - that's why I took your challenge to answer the specific question as rhetorical, since you already know my answer.
The reason we agreed to diasgree about what did or didn't work here, was my dawning realization that Pirsig's view was simply historical, in fact it was you that pointed that out to me. The 4th level "was" SOM when it arose, but not "is" fundamentally so for all time. Basically - I believe I've moved on to better evolved understandings of "intellect". Ian On 5/12/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ian > > On 11 May: > > > But I can answer the specific question too. Almost too easy. > > > The first split above "Quality" as our (chosen) metaphysical > > foundation is Dynamic / Static, rather than S/O .... need I go on ? > > > The reason it resolves many of the dichotomous either / or issues that > > SOMists find themselves debating / arguing about is that they are > > really choosing between two seemingly objective alternatives, when we > > know that in fact they are not (need not). The view they are missing > > is typically that the options they are debating are two static > > patterns > > This is the orthodox method of how the MOQ tucks SOM under > its wings, and it does not work, but was necessary because of the > miscarried intellectual level. In LILA it is used to demonstrate > how the MOQ solves the mind/matter paradox and should be > applicable to the nurture/nature one as well. But first the said > paradox > > It's due to SOM's two realm completely removed from each > other, one can pursue a thought forever, but nowhere does it pop > out into the matter realm, Yet we know that mind and matter > interacts constantly; we "make up our mind" and our body obeys. > This is its simplest form I know it has countless variants. > > Pirsig's explanation is that the social and biological levels > "connects" the mind and matter realms, but this presupposes that > the inorganic level=matter and the intellectual=mind, but this is > not true, he spends much time to demonstrate that matter > (substance) is a platypus, then it follows that mind is one too. And > even so this only brings the schism to biology/society. How does > "objective" biological patterns interact with "subjective" social > patterns? > > No, it's still-born. The obvious solution is that the S/O distinction > is intellects static value. Because of that (a mere static level) it > will start spawning paradoxes if treated as reality's deepest > schism. This dis-solves all S/O-induced paradoxes in the same > manner as Newton's physics dissolved those induced by the early > Greek physics' flawed premises. > > In the nurture/nature paradox the orthodox method is just as > unwieldy. Nurture=society and nature =biology so here no levels > are missing > > The mind-matter paradoxes seem to exist because the > connecting links between these two levels of value > patterns have been disregarded. Two terms are missing: > biology and society. (LILA) > > But the mystery of what constitute the human behavior - biology > or society - is just as acute and the SOL-ution just as simple and > liberating, SOM's nurture and nature has nothing to do with > MOQ's 2nd. and 3rd. levels (as little as matter and mind has with > its 1st. and 4th.) This paradoxes is (also) created by intellect as > SOM and disappears with SOM as a MOQ level. > > Ian ctd: > > and that the option they are missing is the excluded middle of some > > dynamic balance / interaction of those patterns - their patterns are > > rarely "wrong" merely historically static. The best way to find those > > dynamic alternatives .... need I go on ... participation ... etc. I > > know I don't need to explain MoQism to you. > > > My comment to you is that the way to teach a SOMist that is not to > > "teach" them that. Show them examples, show the koans, lead their > > questions, help their answers. Telling them they are wrong, and you > > are right, gets nobody anywhere - just a recipe for war.. > > > Am I at least addressing your question ? > > I'm afraid you are, but allow me to drone on. Do you agree that > the intellectual level is the fulcrum? If Pirsig had treated it as > SOM - not as if the villainous cuckoo "science" had laid its S/O > egg in its nest, then the SOL would have been the one and only > interpretation? Now, in the Paul Turner letter Pirsig comes one > hair's breadth from admitting that the 4th. level is SOM. > > I think the same happens to the term, "intellectual," when > one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.* > > ".. the same" is the absurdity of making the social level disappear > into molecules, cells and atoms, and "the ancient Greeks" is > SOM in moqtalk. So here we have it from Pirsig for those who > think I commit a "lèse majesty". > > Think about it. > > 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/ > 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/
