{Ham}
> intellectual concepts are encompassed by the social level.
Rather, intellectual concepts are at the intellectual level.
[Ham]
> Where does [Pirsig] say or imply that DQ and SQ
> each constitute half of reality?
Pirsig doesnt specify proportions, but the view in both Lila
& SODV is that reality is DQ + SQ.
[Ham on Bodvar]
> LILA changes Pirsig's original SODV paradigm
The correct chronology is ZMM (1974), Lila (1991) & SODV (1995).
Lila could have changed ZMM but not SODV.
[Ham]
> Pirsig didn't really resolve subject/object duality. In his SODV
> presentation paper he labeled Intellectual & Social levels "subjective
> static patterns" and Organic & Inorganic levels "objective static patterns."
It seems you are assuming that the Subject/Object distinction is the same as
the Subjective/Objective one. But isnt the law, for instance, subjective but
not a
subject?
[Ham]
> human beings as biological patterns of a socio-intellectual level.
There are, of course, no biological patterns at the social or intellectual
level, each
level being discrete.
[Ham]
> If we lived in a moral universe, there would be no need for value preferences
> or
> morality systems, and life would be meaningless.
This argument is invalid without supplying some missing premises.
Craig
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/
