Hi Steve 3 Jan. you wrote to me:
> 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. It's a bit strange that you don't have an opinion on the MOQ and compare all statements - even Pirsig's - against this your opinion. If you had you would have discovered the many discrepancies and that there simply is no unambiguous "Pirsig philosophy", but an unfinished symphony. At least I have and have made an essence of what I regard unique about the MOQ which is its rejection of SOM and that SOM must become MOQ's 4th. level in this process. Thus SOM's "mind" - that some for inexplicable reasons believe is MOQ's 4th. level - no longer exists in that capacity, but is part of Q-intellect's mind/matter aggregate. Humans ARE a conglomerate of Q levels, not the other way round; the levels existing on "our" intellectual level in its old "mind" capacity. Remember Lila (Blewitt) not having value, but value having her? This true MOQ statement is what Pirsig violates so violently in the quotes from Lila's Child you brought. The MOQ as Pirsig's personal property is ridiculous, new ideas tend to come from many directions, but he would certainly have the credited of our times' Plato had he not wanted so badly to have SOM laurels (the William James connection) and be a Zen master (the outrageous Quality/MOQ "metaphysics").These two are related and comes in many disguises: Marsha's "DQ/concepts" for instance. Bodvar > 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/ > > > ------- End of forwarded message ------- 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/
