Group!
5 March Paul Turner wrote to some chosen few.
> Hello all, Hope you are all well. I took a look at the recent posts
> on MD and saw that the SOL is still being discussed at length. In
> these posts I noticed a little comment from Bo which I feel the need to
> correct (no offence, Bo).
> On Fri Feb 27 00:29:43 PST 2009 Bo wrote:
> "Paul Turner was a real slugger, but after years of debate the last
> argument made him write the said letter and after that he
> disappeared."
> I first debated the SOL with Bo around June/July 2003. In September
> 2003 I received the "said letter" from Pirsig in response to a letter
> sent by me in August 2003. I continued to debate the topic with Bo
> and others until December 2005 before "disappearing" from the list.
> So this letter, which I actually believe undermines as much as
> supports the SOL, predates my leaving the list by over two years and
> had no bearing on my decision to do so. The arguments I presented to
> Bo between 2003-2005, which I still stand by today, are in the
> archives for all to see.
The "timeline" of these things may be as Paul says. To me it
looked as if the said letter triggered his quitting the discussion.
About the letter "....undermining as much as it supports the SOL" I
also agree with, but this is a long way from the earlier ("Lila's
Child") outright rejection, so the general trend is definitely towards
the SOL.
> Over three years on I have no desire to pick up the debate and have
> nothing to add to my arguments. However I have found some
> correspondence with Pirsig from October 2005 restating his opinion on
> the social/intellectual distinction which might be of interest.
Pirsig:
"If one is looking for a precise point of division between social and
intellectual thought, it might be that intellectual language involves
long chains of consciously careful inductive and deductive thinking
whereas social thought does not. So, if one wants to say that
Egyptians were intellectual then one should show from their
hieroglyphics just where the long chains of consciously careful
inductive and deductive thinking are. I haven't seen this in what
exposure I've had to the ancient Egyptian culture.
I'm puzzled why Pirsig resorts to these (idle) speculations all the
time he so eloquently and convincingly has described the
emergence of intellect in ZAMM. It surely was THEN people
started to "...involve long chains of consciously careful inductive
and deductive thinking" while the previous Aretê era (social in
LILA) was one immersed in emotions, no rationality. It's so
obvious.
About the Egyptians I agree Their mythological era was
contemporaneous with the Greek's. Their prowess in building
pyramids had nothing to do with intellect's ".. long chains of
consciously careful inductive and deductive thinking" but a result of
calculating skills and limitless labor. This society could have
spawned Q-intellect, but the instead it refined the social mythology
into the mono-theist pattern we know as "Semitic religion".
What complicates all this discrimination between intellectual and
social thought are intellectual patterns that are no longer
intellectually valid but are sustained by the social traditions that
they created long ago. Religious beliefs are in this class. Classical
physics is in this class. I think much of the opposition to the MOQ
falls in this class as well.
Right, the social level spawned the intellectual, yet, after that it's
not social VALUE that sustains intellectual VALUE, it's rather
intellect that has "infiltrated" social patterns. Pirsig's on "religious
beliefs in this class" (if that means "intellect sustained by social
traditions") I find it upside-down, it's intellect that controls social
patterns. F.ex. Christendom which is intellect-influence.
"Opposition to the MOQ"? Yes, by Jove, that's intellect trying to
keep the MOQ from "leaving home".
Finally, there is something of a bootstrap problem about intellect
defining intellect. A definition is a kind of container and a
container that is supposed to contain itself makes me uneasy. In the
language of the buddhas, intellect is easily recognized and contained
as the illusion that quits upon enlightenment. And in the language of
everyday life I don't think anyone has a problem with the terms,
"intellectual" and "social."
"Intellect defining intellect!" Here he's on the 4th level where
"intellect=mind and the problem of mind defining mind. Why does
he not see his own great achievement, namely that the MOQ
postulates an intellectual level which isn't mind but the very
MIND/MATTER distinction!.
It's just that when intellect tries to describe intellect itself
with great precision a kind of endless thrashing around
begins because the intellectual level in trying to contain
itself is always lacking a container of the container.
Yes, his proto.moq was Preintellectual Quality/Intellectual Quality
(the latter=SOM) and when SOM tries to describe "intellect" it
becomes a description of the subjective mind, a futile task. Phew!
As Phaedrus he had it all sorted out, so why the latter-day Pirsig
now acting as if he is lost?
An old engineering maxim says, "Good enough is best,"
meaning don't over-design things. In the continuing design
of the MOQ the present common everyday understanding
of these two terms seems "good enough," to me or at least
good enough until someone can answer your question
better than I have." (Pirsig to Turner, October 2005)
IMO the SOL answers the question better.
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/
