Bodvar 23 Feb. you issued
Bo before: > > Whatever you think of my SOL the MOQ as an intellectual pattern is > > untenable. [Horse] > Not according to Robert Pirsig whose work you are continuing to > mangle. It's very simple - a metaphysics IS an intellectual pattern of > value. Bodvar spake thus: The "value" solely belongs to the MOQ, nowhere does Aristotle say that "metaphysics is an intellectual pattern of value" Ron: What buffoonary, "metaphysics' was not used by Aristotle, he termed his work as a theory of explaination and meaning. Bodvar goes on: and Pirsig started the argument [for a new wold view which would overthrow the old SOM world view] Ron: He argued for an expanded world view, one that was not as narrow as SOM. Bo goes on: all correctly by pointing to the fact that "..no one can avoid metaphysics", meaning that wherever anthropologists went people had an explanation of existence, and by this it's plain that Pirsig intended the term to mean something immensely wider than the article that SOM's instigator coined. Ron: If you mean Aristotle, you are wrong. As said, Aristotles work he called a theory of explaination. The term "metaphysics" was coined in the renessaince. A mis nomer for where it sat in the library. Bodvar: But trust Pirsig to open along this correct line for suddenly to change into "writing metaphysics" in the Aristotelian sense of "a subjective theory" which was playing straight into SOM's hands. Ron: Again Bodvar, Aristotle made no such statements or claims , subjective is a perjorative word that objectivists use to dismiss a phenomena as unreal or a hallucenation. > [Horse] > Only in your head Bo. A metaphysics is an Intellectual Pattern of > Value and exists quite comfortably at the Intellectual level. Bodvar: Well, if you want to reject Pirsig's correct "container logic", who am I to stop you. Ron: If you read that snipp in it's context, he's talking about Quality. About statically describing it in a system of thought thusly he structured his heirarchy Quality(undefined dynamic) static quality (4 levels) intellectual quality social quality biological quality inorganic quality "You can't have Box "A" contain within itself Box "B," which in turn contains Box "A." That's whacko." (By courtesy of Pirsig) Ron: But thats exactly what you are doing by insisting MoQ, a static intellectual pattern is reality, dynamic indefineable Quality. How can reality be undefined yet be defined in a system of thought? thats the container logic. [Horse] > Because Bodvar is wrong which is what Pirsig has said on a number of > occasions. Bodvar gets ruffled: You sound like DMB. Pirsig has said many things and aren't we to extract what fits the deepest meaning of the MOQ and ignore what perpetuates SOM? As said before: if the MOQ is an intellectual pattern what is NOT intellectual patterns? Ron: A glimmer of light! keep thinking Bo, you are on to it. thats exactly right. Both subject and object are intellectual patterns of value that MoQ unites as one intellectual pattern instead of two. Bo begins to ramble: After all the MOQ is the Quality Reality. Ron: And the Qualtiy reality is the understanding that s/o is not THE intellectual level but a dominant intellectual pattern. Bo rambeling: If not we are back in the Aristotelian - i.e. SOM - where there is a reality "out there" that we "in here" make theories about. Ron: Again this was Descarte NOT Aristotle and no we are not. Rambelin Bo: The fact that this ineffable reality now is called Quality and the MOQ is only one among an unending number of possible Q-hypotheses does not alter a thing. Compare it to ZAMM Ron: What do you mean it does not alter a thing? previosly SOM was reality. Reality was objective and the mind reflected it. NOW it's all one experience defined in many different ways, s/o being one of them. How is that the same? this explains this quote: He coined a law intended to have the humor of a Parkinson's law that ``The number of rational hypotheses that can explain any given phenomenon is infinite.'' It pleased him never to run out of hypotheses. Even when his perimental work seemed dead-end in every conceivable way, he knew that if he just sat down and muddled about it long enough, sure enough, another hypothesis would come along. And it always did. It was only months after he had coined the law that he began to have some doubts about the humor or benefits of it. If true, that law is not a minor flaw in scientific reasoning. The law is completely nihilistic. It is a catastrophic logical disproof of the general validity of all scientific method! Ron: Get it? Parkinsins law is relativism, it means objective truth does not exist. It destroys SOM. It validates his assertion that truth is defined in terms of value. Value from an infinite range of hypothesis. An infinite range of intellectual patterns of Quality. Bo warps Parkinsins law to fit his view: The above is one aspect of SOM's many flaws which would put young P. on the search for an escape from, and do you see the likeness with the MOQ "just one of an infinite number of possible 'moqs'"? Why lapse back into the problem that the MOQ was supposed to be a relief from? Ron: It does, but you simply do not understand it. Its VALUE the GOOD QUALITY which gives infinite regress any meaning. It limits it. thats the big realization, there is no ONE truth only the value of intellectual patterns. > [Horse] > There you go again - Pirsig is an idiot because he doesn't agree with > Bo. In fact everyone who doesn't agree is either a fool or an idiot > according to Bo. Perhaps symbol manipulation is a difficult concept > for you Bo but for most of us it is not problematic. And your > continued denigration of non-western intellect is risible. Bo defiantly replies: I know that you and DMB see the SOL as a personal attack on RMP and that you want protect him and that's noble, but I feel I have to protect the MOQ against many of Pirsig's own statements. Ron: The MoQ is Pirsig. Pirsig is simply sharing his thoughts about experience scientific method and the flaws of objectivism in western culture. But you seem to think the MoQ is a seperate distinct entity, it's not. It's called "thinking for yourself." Bo.. And the MOQ as an intellectual pattern robs it of all power. DMB has long since stopped to speak about the MOQ and you have never tried, just because your "orthodox" version is impotent. Ron: You keep saying that but you have NEVER explained how or why. [Horse] > Only if you first assume that the Intellectual Level is SOM. If you > don't then there is no problem. Bo retorts: Did you notice Pirsig's about the "Early books of the Bible"? But if one studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies the sayings of primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is conspicuously absent. The world is ruled by Gods who follow social and biological patterns and nothing else. I'f it is not SOM which is missing, what is? And this is typical, the SOL pops up all over the place, but when I asked about it ... alas.. Ron: Thats because both of those examples consist of oral traditions. Explainations were mythopoetic stories, parables with moral lessons. it lacked the belief "that the principles of mathematics are the principles of all things." A dominant belief Bodvar...write it 300 times. SOM is a dominant BELIEF. 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/
