Hey Bo, Just so I'm clear about your argument are you saying that computer languages and higher mathematics rightfully belong at the social level because they are merely extensions of language and calculation that began long before S/O dualism that marks Pirsig's intellectual emerged on scene?
If so, makes sense to me. The only problem remaining for me in your theory is the need to posit a meta-level for the MOQ which seems to replace Pirsig's suggestion of a higher level of art. I understand your (and Pirsig's) "container" argument, but still something just doesn't seem to fit right when it comes to a meta-level reality. I'll work on it. Maybe my idea of beauty being both immanent and transcendent can supply the missing link. Regards, Platt . On 22 Feb 2010 at 17:43, [email protected] wrote: > Hi Platt > > Sun Feb 21. you said > > > Pirsig makes the point (LC Note 50) that higher mathematics and > > computer languages, which are not structured into subjects-objects > > (SOM), would not have a "home" unless part of the MOQ's intellectual > > level.... > > Math is just a term for calculation after the intellectual level - the > Greeks - made it an academical branch. But calculation itself - and > there aren't calculations without manipulation of symbols (following > rules of logic?) is something people have done since God knows when > and no one will claim that Stonehengers were "intellectuals" when > calculating the point of vernal equinox or the Egyptians doing their > calculation when building the Pyramids. > > "Computer language" is just another language even if using other > symbols and grammar and - likewise - no on would say that the > Neanderthals and Cro Magnons were intellectuals only because they > had language and manipulated its symbols by rules of grammar and > syntax. Even Pirsig makes a fool of himself in his effort to avoid the > conclusion that most of LILA points to. In "Lila's Child" however, he > suddenly found the SOL conclusion offensive and produced some of > the most un-moqish annotations I know. > > > .... As I understand your position, the intellectual level is the level > > of subject-objects or SOM. > > The intellectual level emerged as SOM in ZAMM and it was not > subjects and objects falling down from the sky, but the Greeks who > began to think independently of the old social context and through > many stages arrived at the first recognizable SOM the notion of Truth > veiled by what Appeared to be true, but were illusions. Then the many > dichotomies of what was true and what was illusory ...all this is known > by us Pirsigeans. Exactly when the subject/object dualism arrived I > don't know, but at least after Descartes "things" became material > objects and what observed them were mental subjects, and the > paradoxes created by this fault line began to emerge ..... not to be > fixed until Pirsig. > > > So where in your interpretation would you put such non-SOM intellectual > > systems as computer languages and higher mathematics? In other words, > > how do you answer Pirsig's need to find a "home" for these > > "intellectual" inventions? > > Calculation and language are not "intellectual inventions" but these > fancy-sounding names surely are. I treat non-S/O as non-intellectual > patterns. Calculation is an intelligence-brain-related ability i.e. a > biological pattern, animal show signs of intelligence and I guess some > primates can calculate to a limited extent. Now, IMO the big human > neo-cortex brain were the biological stepping stone to the social > development so at this level - particularly after language - calculation > methods advanced and (seven-league boots on) when we come to the > Babylonians and Egyptians they used every calculation methods there > are only they never calle it anything. With the Greeks and the > intellectual level all these things were systematized into academical > fields, theorems were worked out to show why/how all this worked > ...objectively seen. Just ask Ron he knows ;-). > > 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/
