Hi Andre, A pretty good summarizing effort. Plenty for the pedants to disagree with, but pretty good to a pragmatist. That's all I was trying to do before Bo brought Platt into it ... where there's that history requiring social-work, maybe even UN Peacekeeping ;-)
One serious comment ... where you (almost) conclude. "Maybe we need to completely rethink our intellectual processing. They do include all levels." I'll say ! The point is some HAVE embraced the MoQ and completely rethought our mental processing to something more than SOMist intellect. The problem is for those who stick with SOMist intellectual reasoning in futile attempts to better define components of the MoQ, not for those who have made that mental leap. (Clearly that mental leap cannot be well "defined" SOMistically, even MoQistically, by definition. But it is no more a matter of "faith" than any other metaphysical choice ... it's a choice to embrace the pragmatism of real experience. Remember I made this choice before I'd even heard of Pirsig, so I'm very sensitive to the gratuitous "faith" jibe from Bo ... which was quite out of character for Bo.) Regards Ian On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 9:47 AM, Andre Broersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Steve to Platt: > > Platt: > Yes. The SOM intellectual level (not pattern) is what Pirsig is talking > about here -- the level that became "supreme" over the social level, > upsetting Rigel and causing him to dump on Pirsig. > > Steve: > I never said that the intellectual level is a pattern, rather it is a > type of pattern. > I know that you view the levels as types of people rather than types > of patterns. This is a misconception. Though the levels help us to > understand people by understadning what pattern dominate diferent > people, if you do a search for "intellectual level" in Lila, you will > never see Pirsig refer to someone as "being on the intellectual > level"--a phrase that is used regularly in this forum. What you will > find is the frequent use of the phrase "intellectual level of > evolution" and references to patterns as in the following: > etc etc, > > Andre: > > Hi Steve, Platt and all, > > By intellectual level Pirsig means to include all the patterns that define > that level. It was this SOM intellectual level, i.e. including all its > derivatives (patterns) he held responsible for the mess we are in and to > tackle this level he had to go where, as far as he knew, no one had ever > gone before. Out of this quest arose the MoQ. > Aristotle's (S/O) metaphysics (search for Truth) arose out of the social > level after a battle with the Sophists (search for Good). Truth won, The > Good lost. Rhetoric stayed at the social level and perhaps transformed into > the Church (!?). Since SOM's renaissance it has been in constant conflict > with the Church and after Armistice Day, when this intellectual level,and > all its patterns, claimed the driver's seat, it has been the dominating > intellectual level. > > I don't particularly like creating another level. Before we know it we have > created ourselves a MoQ Tower of Babel! But what Pirsig has done was not > simply applying some cosmetic surgery to this level ( he didn't simply > change a bit of terminology, added a bit here, rearranging a bit there to > 'help' SOM).He expanded it but almost beyong recognition. He didn't want SOM > to be overlaid with prettiness (ZMM p287). As he suggests earlier: 'To > arrive at...Quality requires a somewhat different procedure from the Step 1, > Step 2, step 3 instructions that accompany dualistic technology [and S/O > science]... (ZMM p 286). > > He sought a complete unification and has applied major ECT (pardon the > analogy)!! > He has created a completely new personality.SOM into MoQ. > BUT by suggesting that the MoQ is a static intellectual pattern sitting > nicely, side by side with SOM, within the same level is expressing a mind > divided against itself. The MoQ is 'opposed' to SOM for reasons that have > been stated left, right and center in our posts (and many more) i.e.not > recognising Quality. > BUT Pirsig brings the MoQ back into the S/O camp by suggesting his > definition of the meaning of the intellectual level. (see letter to Paul > Turner). 'Abstract manipulation' presupposes 'concrete manipulation'. This > is reinforcing the S/O distinction again. > SQ is supposed to designate the unification of subject/object ( the romantic > and classic 'understanding that led him on this path in the first place) and > the MoQ is that. DQ/SQ. > > His own definition, to make it more meaningful, does not reflect the massive > job he has carried out. > MoQ 'inspired' intellectualisation means being informed, reflecting and > being conscious of all processes at all levels, including the responses to > quality events. Instead of reducing this level it needs to be expanded again > to render it more meaningful! In this way you also remove this dualistic > S/O thinking. We are these processes and these patterns (Lila p158)!! > Maybe we need to completely rethink our intellectual processing. They do > include all levels. > > Our current SOM Intellectual level stops us from direct experience. 'Kill > all intellectual patterns' (Lila p 406). > > I think the 'expanded' version places us in the Code of Art area and in this > sense 'closer' to DQ. > > For what it is worth. > 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/
