Ian
On 12 May you wrote:
> 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.
OK, the 3rd. level may be influenced by one's understanding of
the 4th, IMO the whole MOQ hinges on it. What your definition of
intellect is I'm not sure about, but I guess you have accepted
Pirsig's latest::
Intellectuality occurs when these customs as well as
biological and inorganic patterns are designated with a
sign that stands for them and these signs are manipulated
independently of the patterns they stand for. "Intellect"
can then be defined very loosely as the level of
independently manipulable signs. Grammar, logic and
mathematics can be described as the rules of this sign
manipulation.
But this is merely language and if language=intellect the social
level disappears. Unless one sees "intellect" before the 4th. level,
(like life before the 2nd. level) but I'm afraid is the prevailing
notion.
It's useless to ask why Pirsig didn't see the obvious, namely that
intellect occured when humankind started to distinguish between
the sign and what it signify, between a symbol and what it
symbolizes, between language and what it is about, between the
abstract and the concrete ... between the subjective and the
objective.
The SOL is now so thoroughly documented to be Phaedrus
original vision that the only alternatives are either saying "NO"
without any reasoning (or some impenetrable nonsense like Ron)
or stop talking with me like Matt did, and I must say that Matt's of
May 5 is the best testimonial I've received to this day
The funny thing I've always thought about Bo is that from
what I understand of his position, it is a bit more
interesting than what other people write about Pirsig here.
It's different and distinctive.
Ian ctd:
> 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.
Hmmm, wish you would elaborate here.
> 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".
This no "bone" at all, the 4th, level was S/OM when it arose, but
become the 4th static level when the Quality context was
revealed. In the former capacity the S/O divide was a disaster, in
the latter it's the highest and best static value.
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/
