Greetings Steve, Bo's SOL is not something with which I agree, or disagree, for I do not fully understand it. I agree with Bo primarily on two issues: 1) that the Intellectual Level should be understood as the subject/object level, and 2) that the MoQ's dynamic/static point-of-view is best modeled as a level above the Intellectual Level. I do not think I have much to add to my interpretation, but I will try to explain one more time.
For me, the Intellectual Level represents patterns/processes that objectify and manipulate abstract symbols. From Wikipedia's entry on objectification: "Objectification is the process by which abstract concepts are treated as if they were concrete things or physical objects. In this sense the term is synonym to reification." And while within the Intellectual Level subjective values are rejected, these objectified(reified) entities are acted upon by a 'subject'. Voila! Subject and objects! Algebra and machine language are sets of rules used by subjects to manipulate the 'objects'. Ian very nicely reminded me of the lecturing Physicist that said during his explanation of the calculation to determine particle spin, that this is not just mathematics but something "real". There, seems to me, is a very good example of the reification of something that is not immediately identified as an object. The Quality(Dynamic/static) level is more difficult to explain because our language has evolved with the Intellectual Level and is focused on subjects and objects. To me it is a point-of-view based on ever-changing, interrelated patterned experience and undifferentiated experience, experience all the way. No subject and no objects, but the experience of interconnected patterns responding to the indifferentiated. It is at least a leap of understanding as great as that that separates the Intellectual Level from the Social Level, and because it represents experiencing interconnectedness rather than the subject/object dichotomy is best modeled as a level beyond the Intellectual Level. RMP's comments in LILA's CHILD seem to address a discussion with Bo that is not entirely presented in that short chapter: Intellect as Rationality [January 1998], so I do not consider the comments addressing my point-of-view. And besides I would want more than flat comments from 2003, I would want explanation, some back and forth discussion and an opportunity for further questions to be considered. Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 12:54 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] SOL Hi Marsha, You mentioned that the only opinion you cared about with regard to Bo's SOL interpretation is RMP's. In fact, as Bo well knows, Pirsig did "rule" on the issue and not at all favorably to Bo's interpretation. The following is from Lila's Child: Bodvar: Gentlemen! I must hasten to say that rationality wasnt meant to replace static patterns of intellect as the official name in the MOQ. The reason for introducing the term stems from a thread in the early days of TLS when the evasiveness of this value dimension dawned upon us. At first it was pinned down as thinking, mental activity, consciousness, mind for short, but this really screws things up. The MOQ rejects mind/matter as the fundamental division of reality so defining intellect as mind means lapsing back to the SOM. I long stuck to Symbolic Language (and still think its a good definition), but someone caught the idea that intellect can be seen as rational thinking. Long before the Lila Squad days, it had puzzled me greatly that Subject/Object metaphysics maybe viewed as the intellectual level of MOQ! I even raised the question in a letter to Pirsig, but he did not respond. [88] Pirsig responded with this annotation: 88. I dont remember not responding, so it must have been an oversight. I dont think the subject-object level is identical with intellect. Intellect is simply thinking, and one can think without involving the subject-object relationship. Computer language is not primarily structured into subjects and objects. Algebra has no subjects and objects. Case closed? Of course Bo is welcome to come up with his own philosophy, but a subject/object level is clearly not what Pirsig means by the intellectual level in his MOQ. What do you think? Best, Steve 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/
