HI Horse, Wow. I tend to agree with Bo. At least most of what he says. The Intellectual Level is SOM. Please explain how I am incorrect. I am not arguing, would just like to know.
Mary - The most important thing you will ever make is a realization. > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:moq_discuss- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Horse > Sent: Sunday, February 21, 2010 8:24 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment > > 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: > > On 20/02/2010 21:04, [email protected] wrote: > > 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? > > > > 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 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. > > > > > > "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. > > >> 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. > > > > > > > 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. > > 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. > > > Horse > > -- > > Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of > arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid > in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly > used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... > Hunter S Thompson > > > 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/
