Hi Bo, With all of you disagreement with Pirsig below about what the "real MOQ" is, maybe you should simply call your philosophy something other than the MOQ since the MOQ is Pirsig's philosophy, and you don't subscribe to it.
Best, Steve On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:36 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Steve > > Sat Jan 2. u wrote > >> Logic is a set of intellectual patterns. It includes much of the >> criteria we have invented to judge the quality of other intellectual >> patterns and the guidelines for creating new high quality intellectual >> patterns. It is best to think of logic as descriptive rather than >> prescriptive in its origin so as not to make the mistake of thinking that >> logic predates the inorganic patterns that it does such a good job of >> describing. > > OK, formal Logic - the academical discipline - is intellect, but the 4th. > level is the last and there were aeons when the inorganic was the sole > static layer and all logical - what to call them .. contexts were as valid > then as now. They possibly ARE the inorganic level itself and as such > the first static fall-out. Pirsig's - and your - position of everything = > intellectual and intellect = thinking is plain idealism. > >> Some LC annotations that relate to distinguishing the types of >> patterns and SOLAQI: > > And then Pirsig: > > 43. This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude non- > subject-object constructions such as symbolic logic, higher > mathematics, and computer languages from the intellectual > level and give them no home. > > Well, here it is: "Symbolic logic" (calculation) mathematics (ditto), > computer language (just language) all builds on LOGIC ITSELF, and > this only arriving with the last level makes no sense. Or worse, it > makes the 4th. level the discoverer of objective knowledge hanging > around waiting for "the Greeks to discover them". Something maybe > in tune with Pirsig's mind-intellect, but not with Phaedrus SOM- > intellect. > > Also the term quality as used in the MOQ would be excluded > from the intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives > intellectual meaning to the term quality, would also have to be > excluded from the intellectual level. If we just say the intellect > is the manipulation of language-derived symbols for > experience these problems of excessive exclusion do not > seem to occur > > The term "quality" as used by the intellectual level merely indicated > some subjective like-or-dislike. Once Quality - as used by Phaedrus > in ZAMM - occurred it was no longer a SOM "idea" but what spawned > SOM, which was to become the intellectual level had Pirsig carried > Phaedrus insight on. And then the "manipulation of symbols" > definition that makes the 4th level into a language level. But the effort > to reject the true MOQ had become a must and nothing were spared > in that struggle. > > 45. After the beginning of history inorganic, biological, social > and intellectual patterns are found existing together in the > same person. I think the conflicts mentioned here are > intellectual conflicts in which one side clings to an intellectual > justification of existing social patterns and the other side > intellectually opposes the existing social patterns.... > > I'm not sure what his pertains to, but here again is the "intelligence- > intellect" fallacy clear, and the then "intellect" occurs along with the > human species. The human organism was surely the biological > pattern that spawned the social level, but the intellectual LEVEL arose > from the social LEVEL, nothing particularly to do with humans after > that. Here Pirsig really messes things up: Social value as one > intellectual "faction" and intellectual value another!!!. Why not biology > as a third and inorganic value as a fourth intellectual "faction" .... > everything going on on this intellectual super-level. > > "A social pattern which would be unaware of the next higher > level would be found among prehistoric people and the higher > primates when they exhibit social learning that is not > genetically hard-wired but yet is not symbolic". > > OK, here the "intellect-intelligence" confusion is colossal. Pirsig sees > "intellect" as present with higher primates (apes) they just not knowing > that their "intellect" was symbolic. Had he seen the aforementioned > confusion it would have been OK. Apes "think" all right, but they are > not of the social level so their thinking is not conveyed by language > and definitely not of the intellectual level where thinking-by-language > has become something symbolic "in their minds" that stands for > something else "out there". > > 88. I donTMt remember not responding, so it must have > been an oversight. I donTMt 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. > > All is based on the mentioned intelligence-intellect confusion. I hate to > see my hero err so enormously against his own grand system, but he > obviously trusted the "camel swallowing" Pirsig adhereres not MOQ > adherers. > > 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/ > 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/
