Hi Ian On 5 Nov. you wrote:
> Sorry Bo, but I have to add my usual rejoinder to your point ... > Reason (GOF-Reason) = SOM (Historical fact) If you see the S/O distinction as reason's arrival on the historical scene we agree.. If you in addition would have seen that, as the S/O grew into a metaphysics (an all-encompassing reality), the objective approach (reason) became synonymous with thinking, you would have been "initiated", However the next sentence ... > Reason (Current / New) Reason = MOQ (and other non-SOMist thinking) ... well, in a sense. The MOQ is "out of SOM", thus Pirsig had to use SOM's objective approach to show that Quality=Reality and he starts in the best academical tradition with axioms and proofs. He could not have reverted to the social level's approach "...I have been to mount X where I received a message from God." Yet MOQ's DQ/SQ approach conquers SOM's "M" and relegates the remaning S/O to the more humble role as its own intellectual level. The highest static good only subordinate the said DQ/SQ distinction. > Reason "does not equal" SO-Metaphysics. Reason has evolved. Reason can > be more enlightened than it used to be. Well, as in the said (Horse) quote Pirsig treats "reason" in the same breath as "science", in his view as something that has corrupted intellect and made it forget its social roots ... etc. But it's plain as day that these patterns (reason and science) ARE intellect, and as plain is it that the MOQ is no intellectual pattern (intellect is a MOQ level) but something that has created a new all-encompassing reality. > We still use SOMist models (approximations to reality) whilst > reasoning in any symbolic / linguistic sense (the symbols represent > the S's and O's and their relations) but that is a useful tool (if > sometimes misleading, like any approximation), but not metaphysics. Yes, you are right, it's only when we talk metaphysics we wander around in this "high country" but we seem unable to get down to intellects safe static ground until the MOQ is understood, each time I think it's secured there is a SOM ambush ;-) Bo > Ian > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:39 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrè, Horse, All > > > > 3 Nov. Andrè wrote: > > > >> Allow me to put my two bob's worth of thoughts in here as this has > >> fascinated me even before joining this Discuss. > > > >> In Pirsig's very real 'concrete' example of the doctor's 'dilemma' > >> in killing the germ or letting the germ kill the person, Pirsig > >> shows us a first and full level improvement of how to employ the > >> MoQ *method* of reason(ing) as opposed to SOM method of > >> reason(ing), anticipating, deflecting, possible (religiously > >> inspired) moral dilemma's e.g. to do with embryo's , right to life, > >> right to death (euthanasia). > > > > I still wonder what relevance the "doctor vs germ" example has in > > the Reason=SOM debate (are there doctors who have qualms using > > antibiotics?) but it must have something to do with Andrè's about > > MOQ as a "method of reasoning" as opposed to SOM's ditto. And I'll > > concentrate on this to (try to) make my point. > > > > "Method of reasoning" has a "way of thinking" ring to it and Horse > > (representing orthodoxy) refers to the tenet that MOQ is an > > intellectual pattern competing with SOM for supremacy at that level > > something that makes intellect a realm of different "ways of > > thinking" ..agree? > > > > Now, there was a time before the 4th. level when the social level > > was Q-evolution's "leading edge" but there were intelligent people > > around who displayed "ways of thinking" f.ex. by creating > > complicated mythologies. Were these intellectual patterns?? > > > > This is the blind ally that orthodoxy leads into; If intellect is > > the said realm of reasoning then social reasoning must be intellect > > too, even animal's non-verbal reasoning And why stop there as > > Pirsig says in the PT letter > > > > If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive > > cultures just because they are thinking about things, why stop > > there? How about chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about > > earthworms? Don't they make conscious decisions? How about > > bacteria responding to light and darkness? How about chemicals > > responding to light and darkness? Our intellectual level is > > broadening to a point where it is losing all its meaning > > > > But these relevant observations are nullified by Pirsig's own > > insisting that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern while it's plain > > that INTELLECT IS A MOQ PATTERN. The said insisting is what spawns > > the misconception that intellect is where "metaphysics" are - the > > MOQ included. If this could be cleared up the SOL would be the only > > way to interpret the MOQ. > > > > IMO > > > > Bodvar > > > > > > > > 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/ > > 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/
