Horse and Platt
2 Nov, Horse wrote (to Platt but allow me):
Platt in Lila's Child:
> "To fill the hole may require a new level above SOM. I´m not sure
> about this. After all, the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM
> reasoning." Annotation 132 follows.
Platt is spot on. The MOQ is "out of SOM" no one can deny that. It was
SOM's paradoxes that vexed young P. so much that he - after flunking
school and drifting laterally for many years - had his Quality Epiphany.
And that he had to use SOM's reason to prove that SOM is incomplete
is just as plain..
> Pirsig's reply still doesn't equate Reason with SOM.
Reason is part of my "expression" list
Interaction - Sensation - Emotion - Reason
... thus nowhere in Pirsig's works does he treat reason particularly, as
little as the rest of the list.
> What it says is that SOM employs reason, indicating that reason is an
> Intellectual POV. The MOQ also employs reason, as shown in one of your
> favourite quotes:
Listen. All patterns of all levels are internally related. An amoeba is
"life" and so is the mammal species that our biology belong to. Thus if
REASON is an intellectual pattern then ALL intellectual patterns must
be "reasonable", S/O-ish or objective .
Pirsig:
"Taken by itself that seems obvious enough. But what¢s not so
obvious is that, given a value-centered Metaphysics of Quality,
it is absolutely, scientifically moral for a doctor to prefer the
patient. This is not just an arbitrary social convention that
should apply to some doctors but not to all doctors, or to some
cultures but not all cultures. It¢s true for all people at all time,
now and forever, a moral pattern of reality as real as H2O.
We¢re at last dealing with morals on the basis of reason. We
can now deduce codes based on evolution that analyze moral
arguments with greater precision than before." (Chapter 13
Lila)
> So reason is not SOM because if it was then we would have SOM
> (Valueless) being used to support the MOQ (nothing but value) which
> would be a complete contradiction.
There exists a level-like relationship between SOM and MOQ (from
MOQ seen between the intellectual level and the system it's part of)
and in this light the MOQ is as much a liberation from SOM as the
intellectual level is from the social level .... in spite of being "out of
society". No contradiction at all.
> Another indication from Pirsig that SOM and Reason are not > >
identical is the following:
Pirsig
"The intellectual level of patterns, in the historic process of
freeing itself from its parent social level, namely the church,
has tended to invent a myth of independence from the social
level for its own benefit. Science and reason, this myth goes,
come only from the objective world, never from the social
world. The world of objects imposes itself upon the mind with
no social mediation whatsoever. It is easy to see the historic
reasons for this myth of independence. Science might never
have survived without it. But a close examination shows it isn¢t
so." (Chapter 12 Lila)
Now your "reason" seems to fail you. Here Pirsig CONFIRMS that
reason and SOM (as science) is identical ...as well as being intellect's
expression. Analyzing this it says that the intellectual level tries to free
itself from "society" which is right, all levels' purpose is to free
themselves from their parents. Inventing myths .. well all levels are
myths of being independent, and intellect's STATIC VALUE is just the
said "myth".
PS.
Pirsig had to chastise SOM to promote the MOQ, but afterwards -
when the S/O distinction had become its own 4th level (as the SOL
says) - to continue this persecution is purposeless. But - alas - stems
from making intellect a nondescript neutral mind-like level that has
been hijacked by "science and reason".
> I think the main problem I have with the idea that SOM and Reason are
> identical is that in order for this to be correct, then Bo's SOL would
> be correct and I just don't believe this is the case. And neither does
> Pirsig, so I'm in pretty good company.
OK, I see your "reason" ;-) Fair enough, but the SOL must be
employed for the MOQ to be consistent and have its proclaimed
explanatory power.
Anyway thanks for raising these questions, they go to the very heart of
the MOQ.
Bo
>
>
> Cheers Platt
>
> Horse
>
> PS
> Thanks to you (and Andre) for the nice things you said about me - I do
> appreciate it.
>
>
> Platt Holden wrote:
> > Hi Horse,
> >
> > [Horse wrote]
> >
> >> So can you give me an instance of where Pirsig specifically equates
> >> reason with SOM.
> >>
> >
> > "It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social
> > structures such as courts and journals and learned societies to make
> > itself known. SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social
> > structures, and the MOQ is not subordinate to the SOM structures it
> > employs. Remember that the central reality of the MOQ is not an
> > object or a subject or anything else. It is understood by direct
> > experience only and not by reasoning of any kind. Therefore to say
> > that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful as saying that
> > the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning. It doesn't tell us
> > anything about the essence of the Ten Commandments and it doesn't
> > tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ." (Note 132, LC)
> >
> > Platt
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> Platt Holden wrote:
> >>
> >>>> Hi Platt
> >>>>
> >>>> Just a minor point - why do equate reason (or "reason alone")
> >>>> with SOM. Surely reason is an intellectual POV and not a whole
> >>>> metaphysical system.
> >>>>
> >>>> Horse
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>> Hi Horse,
> >>>
> >>> Bo has given a fine answer to your question. Here's another one.
> >>> From
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> Wikipedia entry on "reason:"
> >>>
> >>> "Reasoning thought follows a chain of cause and effect, and the
> >>> word 'reason' can be a synonym for 'cause.' "
> >>>
> >>> >From Note 56, Lila's Child:
> >>>
> >>> "The word 'produced' implies that Dynamic quality is a part of a
> >>> cause
> >>>
> >> and
> >>
> >>> effect system of the kind generated by scientific thinking. But
> >>> Dynamic Quality cannot be part of any cause and effect system
> >>> since all cause
> >>>
> >> and
> >>
> >>> effect systems are static patterns."
> >>>
> >>> Great to hear from you. It gives me an opportunity to express my
> >>> appreciation for the high quality of your design and maintenance
> >>> of
> >>>
> >> this
> >>
> >>> site. All participants past and present owe you a debt of
> >>> gratitude if
> >>>
> >> not
> >>
> >>> cash contributions which you have repeatedly refused to ask for or
> >>>
> >> accept.
> >>
> >>> Be assured, however, that your efforts have not been overlooked or
> >>> forgotten. I know I speak for many here in saying, "Thanks."
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Platt
> >>>
> >
> > 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/
> >
> >
>
> --
>
> Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of
> arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid
> in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly
> used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"...
> Hunter S Thompson
>
>
> 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/
