Bodvar to Andre: OK, but how you "apply it loosely" I wish I understood, Pirsig's here "Gefundenes Fressen" for those who haven't understood the first thing.
Andre:( Hi Bodvar,yes, it keeps on tugging away at me) By keeping in mind they are patterns of value first and foremost. I do not know what that German expression means nor what you mean by what comes after. Bodvar: The MOQ has broken the Subject/Object spell by introducing the Dynamic/Static "spell" and relegating the former the position of its own static intellectual level. That's the only way to do it, there is no "metaphysical trash can" the SOM can be dropped into and forgotten, the former world view must find a place within the new WV and this the MOQ does perfectly. Andre: I think I understand what you are saying here (tell me if/when I'm wrong): 1)in ZMM Phaedrus establishes SOM as the intellectual level emerging from the social level (with the Greeks). 2)in LILA the MoQ emerges from the SOM intellectual level AND therefore cannot be seen as operating from that same intellectual level. 3)therefore there needs to be a level 'above' the intellectual level for the MoQ to fully exert its domination over and liberation from SOM (ohh, this sounds interesting!!). 4)Phaedrus' Code of Art level can be considered the level at which the DQ/SQ configuration becomes fully expressible/experienced? Bodvar: Where have you fetched the "SQ levels abstracted from DQ"? If SOM's "abstract/concrete" dualism is allowed in the MOQ it's done for. The SQ levels are fallouts from DQ - "creations" if you like, but no abstraction please. Andre: I concur (it is perhaps an unfortunate expression given the context of the dialogue) and note your special sensitivity to the abstract/concrete notion within this context. Bodvar: Well, nevertheless it's the fulcrum, if there are non-S/O intellectual patterns the 4th. level has turned into a mind-like vessel that contains something called "intellectual patterns". Or it becomes a mental ability like language (Pirsig's manipulation of symbols). Give me just one example of a intellectual patter that isn't S/O. Andre: Subjects and objects are intellectual patterns of value ( they are also non- empirical i.e. I have never seen or experienced a 'subject' or 'object' in my life! nor anyone else, I think) Pirsig talks about 'many forms of intellect' not having s/o constructions: eg, logic itself, mathematics, computer programming languages (LC, p 422). Logically (!) this suggests to me that 'SOM-as-intellect' is just one configuration of many. And since '.. seen from the MoQ the separation is not absolute- mere static- yet the highest static value the M part ipso facto disappears n'est pas? (or am I very naive as usual). I am also getting confused by your use of expressions such as; 'mind-like', 'mental ability'. I thought Mr.Pirsig had suggested to scrap the former. Is mental ability the same as 'thinking'? Bodvar, I notice that I am only halfway through responding to your post answering my answers. I think it is best to leave it here and return to some more later. Hope I haven't driven you nuts. Cheers 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/
