Hi Bo
On 31/03/2010 08:11, [email protected] wrote:
Hi Horse
You know how to revive the discussion when at a low, just introduce
the SOL ;-)
30 March you wrote (to Mary who had provided a long list of quotes
that support the SOL) :
Admittedly none directly say "the 4th. level is the subject/object
distinction " but because intellect is the level that strives to control
social values and none of the intellectual definitions hitherto provided
explains any social control except the "objective attitude" i.e. the SOL.
See?
There's a good reason why Pirsig doesn't say directly (or indirectly or
by implication etc.) that the Intellectual level is the subject/object
distinction. It's because he doesn't see it that way. He also doesn't
appear to agree with you that an "objective attitude" (whatever that may
be) is required to prevent Social patterns dominating Intellectual
patterns. This is just your incorrect interpretation.
Mary (ZAMM ):
, the day Socrates died to establish the independence
of intellectual patterns from their social origins. Or the day
Descartes decided to start with himself as an ultimate source of
reality. These were days of evolutionary transformation.
This one however is a direct and unequivocal SOL support. Socrates
represents SOM in moqspeak and if he also represents "the
independence of intellectual patterns from their social origins ..." ipso
facto! This goes for Descartes too. How Pirsig could write this in
ZAMM and then - in LILA - become so vague is a mystery.
Probably because he had twenty years or so to think about it. Vague? To
you maybe but not for most of us. You tend to see what you want to see
and ignore everything else that doesn't fit in with your views and
pre-dispositions. There is no support for the SOL in what Pirsig has
written. He has stated this quite clearly on a number of occasions.
From Lila's Child:
Bo: A while back, we spoke about the emergence of intellect and I said
that in a way Subject/Object Metaphysics could be seen as identical to
the intellectual level of the MOQ!
Pirsig: This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude
non-subject-object constructions such as symbolic logic, higher
mathematics, and computer languages from the intellectual level and
gives them no home. Also the term “quality” as used in the MOQ would be
excluded from the intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives
intellectual meaning to the term quality, would also have to be excluded
from the intellectual level.If we just say the intellect is the
manipulation of language-derived symbols for experience, these problems
of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur.
Bo: Long before the Lila Squad days, it had puzzled me greatly that
Subject/Object metaphysics may be viewed as the intellectual level of
MOQ! I even raised the question in a letter to Pirsig, but he did not
respond.
Pirsig: I don’t remember not responding, so it must have been an
oversight. I don’t think the subject-object level is identical with
intellect. Intellect is simply thinking, and one can think without
involving the subject-object relationship. Computer language is not
primarily structured into subjects and objects. Algebra has no subjects
and objects.
Personally, I'd call that direct and unequivocal rejection of the SOL!
Horse:
The above show that Pirsig supports the moral hierarchy of the MoQ -
i.e. that Intellectual patterns of Value should dominate Social
patterns of Value.
Right, but how the heck can - for instance - manipulation of symbols
"dominate social patterns of value"? Language is manipulation ...etc.
and it has been around since the Neanderthals. Come to your senses!
Come to your own Bo! How do Social patterns control Biological patterns?
The analogy is obvious.
In the above, where is he showing support for Bo's idea that the
Intellectual level consists of purely Subjects and Objects?
"Consists of purely subjects and object"!!! What nonsense! Intellectual
value is the "Objective over subjective" capability.
According to you Bo. Not according to Pirsig or the MoQ - see the above
quotes from Lila's Child and whole bunch of other quotes as well.
However, for this to occur the S/O distinction was first to be established, thus
"subjective" is indigenous to intellect - its derogatory term for all that is
untrustworthy. The social level knows no S/O. A true believer will deny that
God just exists in his/her mind.
Yep - and they''re wrong as well no matter how strong their belief.
As far as I have seen so far Bo, there is little intellectual support
for your interpretation of the MoQ - certainly none from Pirsig. You
rely on misinterpretation, rejection of data that doesn't fit your way
of thinking and even go so far as to say that the originator of the MoQ
project doesn't understand his own work.Your interpretation forces you
to mangle the MoQ in order to satisfy your own ego - Social patterns
undermining Intellectual patterns!
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/md/archives.html
