Greetings Bo, I have nothing to say about DQ, it is indivisible, undefinable and unknowable. Please understand this. I talk only of my experience of Quality as unpatterned experience and patterned experience. The disguise is your projection.
Marsha On Jan 4, 2010, at 6:08 AM, [email protected] wrote: > 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/ _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
