Hi again Horse.
2 Nov. you wrote:
> First off you asked: "Show me one pattern you deem intellectual that's
> not a S/O derivative."
> According to Pirsig: Annotation129 (Lila's Child):
"I've always thought this is incorrect because many forms of
intellect do not have a subject-object construction. These
include logic itself, mathematics, computer programming
languages, and, I believe some primitive languages (although I
can't remember what they are)."
> To the above I would probably add Fuzzy Systems, Chaos and Quantum
> Theory.
Admittedly, there are concepts that don't fit the S/O matrix, but nor do
they fit intellect lest everything - Quality included - is intellect. Beauty,
aesthetics, music, logic, intuition ....etc. (I once had a list of concepts
people have suggested as alternative "MOX" up through the years) but
Quality encompasses them all.
Pirsig said the above long before the trouble over intellect began ...to
bother him, later came the PT letter in which he more or less backed
the SOL.
About mathematics I have written many times. Calculation is
something that humankind has done intuitively long before the 4th.
level. Only with the Greeks was it called mathematics and elevated to
an academical discipline whose purpose it was to prove
OBJECTIVELY why the various ways of calculating and building by
using intuitive geometry were eternally TRUE. Very much S/O.
The same goes for "computer programming languages). Language is
as old as mankind, but only with intellect did it become symbols that
symbolize something else and as such S/O to the core.
Regarding fuzzy systems, chaos and Quantum theory. The first and
second are varieties of logic and as such comparable with the said
"unassimilable" concepts. Quantum Mech. as well as Relativity are
scientific theories; Observation of objective nature that subjective
theories are supposed to systematize.
> Secondly, you said: "SOM is no metaphysical system after being
> subsumed by the MOQ. " As far as I'm aware, even if the MOQ does
> subsume SOM (it doesn't - it's a competing Intellectual pattern of
> Value and the MOQ is in opposition to it) this doesn't alter SOM's
> existence as a metaphysical system.
After having taken over SOM's metaphysical rank (the "M") and made
the remaining S/O distinction a a sub-set the MOQ is in no opposition
to SOM, because there is no SOM ... ..except if one insist that the
MOQ is an intellectual pattern, but then one has made the MOQ a
SOM subsidiary where "intellect" = mind and become a SOM idealist
who claims that all is mind.
Again, by raising these objections you at least see what's at stake.
What you said to Platt (about reason as the SOM) shows that you
understand the SOL issue too. Your seeing it as a threat however??
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/
