Good morning Andre (regarding irrelevant "subject lines" what has "British ..." to do with it?
21 Nov. : I had mumbled: > Many of the issues raised has been discussed before (and consensus > arrived at?) and resides somewhere in the archives. > Andre: > You are correct Bodvar, in stating that the intellectual level and > your SOL have been raised over and over again, over a period of more > than 10 years now...though to state/ask about consensus being arrived > at I am not so sure. I have been diving in the archives over the past > few weeks and there isn't any agreement that I could find. I said "many of the issues" not the SOL that I'm aware of is not accepted/agreed upon ...except Marsha who have seen that it is the only interpretation that makes the MOQ a new metaphysics, not merely another ruminating of SOM. > More learned fellows and women than me have stated their views and who > am I to add anything new to either challenge or confirm? Perhaps it is > better to leave the question regarding the 'mysteries' of the > intellectual level hanging (so to speak) as a continued tension > between DQ/SQ. "Mysteries of the intellectual level"! Here you say it. Pirsig's initial problem was the many paradoxes that (as he saw it then) reality present us with, and threatened his sanity. We must understand that he was so totally immersed in SOM that he thought it was REALITY itself. We know from ZAMM the proceeds: First the "what is quality" quandary, then the "dilemma" and the rejection of both (S and O) horns, then the "getting warmer" game, and finally the insight that subjects and objects were Quality's creations. This he called the "trinity" stage, but was joined in the S/O aggregate that he called SOM. And from that moment it's power was broken" after that it was just a job to create a new metaphysics that met the requirements of NOT created "mysteries" and hence the first proto-moq that had SOM as Static Quality's (classic) only "level" - subtitled INTELLECT. See? But Pirsig went on to undermine this great work by calling it a "false start" as if not the DQ/SQ is clearly visible under the RQ/CQ form and that it was only to add the known 3 levels before the intellectual. Had he done so ZAMM and LILA had been perfectly harmonized and the SOL interpreation had been the MOQ. Phew! I would have liked to comment on the rest of the enigmas you mentioned, but am a bit busy right now. See ya Bodvar > Perhaps this is a cop-out on my part but I do not intend it that way. > > As said before, Mr.Pirsig has let his views be known. I wish to remain > neutral in this matter. It does tend to take up a lot of energy better > spent on other things. > > Questions remain and answers fly right over my head sometimes. E.g why > can the MoQ not be an intellectual PoV, as Pirsig maintains it is? > > Is intuition an intellectual PoV? How is Quality excluded from the MoQ > if the MoQ is an intellectual PoV? > > Anyway, I do not know where this will end up but am sure where I will > end up. And it is not in the percolator. > > Perhaps another level is required. Pirsig has stated not to have > objections to this but he still feels that the four 'levels' are > sufficient plus the Code. I highly respect this stance. > > Regards > 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/
