For Andrè
On 27 Oct.
Bodvar (originally) to Platt:
> > I believe you see the value in intellect as the S/O distinction,
> > because this is Pirsig's original intention (ref. all patterns he
> > deems intellectual clearly springs from the objective, detached
> > attitude) and means that "modernity" is the highest static good, only
> > limited by the DQ/SQ context it is part of. The danger comes from the
> > view of the MOQ an intellectual pattern that will pull the rug from
> > under democracy, science, knowledge - modernity meaning that the
> > intellectual level rots from the inside and that social value takes
Andre:
> Bodvar, I am going to annoy the creepers out of you.I thought I was
> just getting one finger's grip on this Int.PoV called MoQ and whenever
> you bring up the SOL it slips away
Too bad I thought you had had an epiphany and seen the SOM-MOQ
premises shift. Because it's a total no-stage-between such, much like
the famous "two black profiles/white vase" example. One either see
one or the other, no instant exists when one sees both.
> I have read your SOL paper 3 times and still do not understand how you
> can reach the conclusion that ïntellect is the S/O distinction.
> Intellect is a nominalisation, same as 'mind'. This means that you
> have objectified the process of intellectualising into an entity of
> some sort (changed a verb...ongoing process... into a noun) Are you
> suggesting that the way we are intellectualising or, for that matter
> the way Pirsig has been intellectualising is still rooted in SOM?
The MOQ rejects the S/O split as existence's fundament (of which
"nominalisation/whats nominalized" is a variety) In its place the MOQ
postulates that existence fundamental split is Dynamic/Static (forget
about Quality at this stage) Consequently there is no nominalisation
realm different from what names refer to .... metaphysically seen that
is. The S/O split (and its countless derivatives) is however an
enormous static value and given the position of MOQ's highest level.
If the SOM-MOQ premise shift isn't understood one may read essays
a thousand times without any effect. Again, from SOM (before the
MOQ) seen the term "intellect" is the subjective realm where language
resides. In the MOQ the intellectual LEVEL level has become the
value of seeing language as different from what's it about, plus a
million of other S/O derivatives.
And it's no use harping on more details, the enormity of this inside-out
turn of the existential "sock" must be understood first.
Bodvar
> That is: the method we use and the results we get from that method
> still interpret in SOM fashion?
>
> Are you suggesting that our brain, which presumably "contains" this
> intellect somewhere, is hard-wired only to process sensory input in
> S/O fashion?
>
> I remember in Lila's Child I think it was, where you used the examin
> repeating ple
> of the surgical intervention on people who experienced severe
> epileptic fits. By slicing the right and left half connection the fits
> stopped. And so appeared artistic on the one side and scientific on
> the other. ( I may misinterpret you here..only going by memory).
>
> I do not understand that the MoQ will "pull the rug from under
> democracy, science, knowledge...".
>
> I know I am missing something in your reasoning but, as mentioned, it
> slips away, cannot find it.
>
> Pirsig has clearly stated that the SOM has a "defect" in it which the
> MoQ seeks to address and remedy.
>
> Bear with me Bodvar but I am as thick as a brick sometimes.And keep
> the language simple...same as me.
>
> Andre
> 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/
