Hi Bo! [You said] Pirsig recognizes the confusion he has created - not by the term "intellect" in itself which indicates the correct objective-over- subjective attitude, but his own misuse of it to mean something resembling MIND*) . i.e. the mental realm where ideas are created and reside according to SOM.
*) Letting "mind" (=subject) lose inside the metaphysics whose purpose is to reject the mind/matter dichotomy (SOM) is disaster. While the mind/matter aggregate as MOQ's 4th. level means it is domesticated. ----- If I understand you correctly, what you say makes a lot of sense. Pirsig set up the rules defining the levels, so if the rules are violated, we must not be talking about Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality anymore. At that point we'd be discussing Mary's or Dave's or Bo's Metaphysics of Quality. Since a level is defined as a set of patterns of value which evolved from the previous level (Social here); and the key distinction between any level and its parent is that it took on a life of its own, then most proposals about what the Intellectual Level is do not fit. You could run down the list of things put forth as the Intellectual Level, and reject most of them based on Pirsig's definition of what a level is. Bo, I'd say you and I agree in general. I've said I thought the Int. Level was all about an attitude of objectivity, the scientific method, the objective anthropologist for example. You take that a step further and say it is all of Subject-Object Metaphysics. I think between the two positions there is still a lot of ground to cover, but what continues to disturb me is coming to the inevitable conclusion that Pirsig's definition of his own level is wrong. Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. 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/
