Hi Horse
21 Feb.
> Sorry Bo but all I see from your explanation is conjecture and wishful
> thinking. Pirsig does not subscribe to "SOM as Quality's Intellect" or
> however you wish to phrase it and has specifically and overtly
> rejected this idea. SOM is not the Intellectual level of the MoQ and
> your repeating mantra does not make it so. Both SOM and MoQ are
> Intellectual Patterns of Value. I've made some comments on your reply
> below:
Is it your turn now to make a fool of yourself? Whatever you think of
my SOL the MOQ as an intellectual pattern is untenable. The 4th.
intellectual level is a subset of a subset of the MOQ and can't
logically - except twisting it into absurdity - contain the MOQ. Pirsig
put great emphasize on the "container logic" so why abolish it
regarding the MOQ, but Pirsig does a few such salto-mortales
Bo before:
> > 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
Horse:
> No, definitely NOT OK. This is NOT Pirsig affirming your mistaken
> idea, this is you assuming something that is not being said, affirmed,
> hinted at or anything else. Pirsig has stated quite categorically that
> your idea of SOM as the Intellectual level is wrong.
The above about about intellect emerging with the Greeks DOES
affirm that the 4th level is the S/O distinction, however he simply
could not say that Bodvar is right, I understand that, and he
complicated matters further with the "symbol manipulation" nonsense
and the equally nonsensical non-S/O "oriental intellect".
Pirsig:
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.
The MOQ is no static level, Christ, how many times must I repeat
that? It is the Quality Reality meta-level! What's for sure is that it
can't be part of is own static range.
> "If the 4th Level is SOM" is incorrect because the 4th Level is not
> SOM. The 4th level is Intellectual Patterns of Value which have
> created both SOM and MoQ. They are competing systems of Intellectual
> Patterns of Value along with a number of other systems. MoQ is not a
> SOM pattern it is an Intellectual Pattern and no "container logic" or
> other logical rules are broken - in fact they are very much unbroken
> and only broken if one mistakenly confuses SOM for the 4th level. Or
> mistakenly confuses the MoQ for reality as you do.
I thought people came to the MOQ for its break with SOM, not to
preserve it, which is done if the MOQ is seen as an intellectual
pattern, meaning an idea on top of the SOM idea and by this token
the social, biological and inorganic levels are also intellectual
patterns-as- ideas - and SOM in the idealist form lives on and so has
all its paradoxes. Good grief.
> > 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.
> This is also where you end up twisting yourself into knots in order to
> accommodate your pet theory. Non-western intellects are also part of
> the Intellectual level and are not SOM but all of the Intellectual
> level is (by your theory) composed of SOM so the non-western intellect
> must be SOM. But it isn't, as you admit so you are twisting yourself
> into logical absurdities.
No logical absurdities at all on my part while you and the rest of "the
orthodox clergy" ... voila! A non-S/O intellect is absurd, the proof of
this is all the intellectual patterns that Pirsig lists in LILA clearly are
based on the "objective-over-subjective" value. And can you tell me
how an intellectual level that contains all ideas since making fire, can
regard social value as "offensive" and being equally offensive to
social values? And how can Pirsig say that most major conflicts
stems from the social-intellectual differences? Neither the idea-
intellect nor the "manipulation-of-symbols" intellect looks like
candidates for provoking much conflict.
> The above is not an indication of Pirsig coming within a "hair's
> breadth" of accepting your interpretation - he doesn't come within a
> mile of it. You are completely wrong in this respect and your
> continued misrepresenting of this fallacious position is dishonest and
> misleading.
I will not participate in this childish "anything you say I can say 'no' to"
game, try to concentrate on the issues at hand.
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/
