Horse 20 Feb. you wrote:
> Hi Bo Perhaps I missed it in my reading of Pirsig's letter to Paul > Turner ( http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html ) but I > don't see anything to support your claim. In fact what I do see is an > outright rejection of your position: My position is that the previous SOM (minus the "M") necessarily must become MOQ's 4th. intellectual level (for it to have its alleged explanatory power) and this was finally affirmed by Pirsig in the said letter with him saying that it's no purpose in speaking about an intellectual level before the Greeks - that "the Greeks" spells SOM in a MOQ context we all know. OK? "The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation but some kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in the MOQ that I know of that leads to this conclusion." Robert Pirsig to Paul Turner ( http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html ) But if the 4th. level is SOM then it follows that the MOQ can't be a SOM pattern, how dense can anyone be to claim that the MOQ is a subsystem of a subsystem of its own system. It violates the container logic that Pirsig stressed so vehemently and every logical rule there are. > So where in the letter does Pirsig do as you say and come within a > 'hairs breadth' of your (incorrect) position? In saying that the Egyptians in spite of their INTELLIGENCE had not entered the INTELLECTUAL level and that only with the Greeks did this transition happen ... on the Western hemisphere that is, the Oriental "intellect" is accounted for. The "hair's breadth" was his saying "not much before the Ancient Greeks", he had to leave that margin for obvious reasons. Bodvar PS 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/
