Hi Andre. Our exchange has its ups and downs, this is an "up". 25 Nov.u wrote:
> 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). Spot on! > 2) in LILA the MoQ emerges from the SOM intellectual level AND therefore > cannot be seen as operating from that same intellectual level. Right! ....only my standard comment: The MOQ is no static level, but the Quality Reality. It only looks like a level in its relationship with intellect > 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!!) Again. Spot on! However "the above intellect" term is an intermediate or temporary expression, the MOQ is the Quality Premises we "live and think" from. > 4) Phaedrus' Code of Art level can be considered the level at which the > DQ/SQ configuration becomes fully expressible/experienced? Agree! > Subjects and objects are intellectual patterns of value Yes, but one point must be stressed: People from before the 4th. level surely saw their "objects" as different from themselves, they just didn't regard their perception of it as"subjective" > ( they are also non-empirical i.e. I have never seen or experienced a > 'subject' or 'object' in my life! nor anyone else, No, Andre, this is not MOQ's complaint against the SOM, this is the S/O-created wilderness. > I think) Pirsig talks about 'many forms of intellect' not having s/o > constructions: eg, logic itself, mathematics, computer programming > languages (LC, p 422). I'm aware of this, but "logic itself" is no intellectual pattern, rather an aspect of Quality itself. Only when formally worked out (by Bertrand Russell) to show how/why 2+2=4 is objectively valid.. > 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). The 4th. level must be the S/O distinction (or the MOQ collapses) but it is not SOM, that's the very point. The "M" is taken over by the MOQ. > 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 The MOQ builds on intellect (in the level-like context) and intellect's S/O-vocabulary can't be scrapped in the same sense that intellect can't scrap social terms from lnaguage. > Is mental ability the same as 'thinking'? Yes, thinking - intelligence - is a biology-based prowess that emerged along with neural complexity. When the social level emerged it adopted thinking for its own purpose, and then intellect for ITS purpose, and here is the point: Intellect's relentless S/O made "thinking by language" (conceptualizing) thus when some quasi- moqists claim that conceptualizing versus non-conceptualizing is the great divide, they are up to their necks in SOM. The MOQ will adopt and apply intelligence "thinking" for its own purpose as well. > 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. OK, I see it was a kind of dismissal, but too late ;-) Bodvar 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/
