Let the mangling begin!
On 01/04/2010 07:31, [email protected] wrote:
Steve and Horse and the whole menagerie.
On 30/03/2010:
Steve:
In the equation "2+2=4" where are the subjects and and where are the
objects?
Bo:
This alleged "refutation" of the SOL (based on Pirsigs "Higher
mathematics.....etc. having no subject/object content") is based on the
misunderstanding that calculation being Q-intellect, while it is merely
calculation that the mankind has performed since time immemorial. At
least as long as it has manipulated symbols in the form of language.
Totally irrelevant. The Babylonians and Egyptians (Hammurabi was a
social level inhabitant according to Pirsig, remember?) calculate and
reckoned using complicated mathematics for instance the
Pythagorean logic that Pyth. - and the Greek intellectuals - made into
proofs and theorems to - OBJECTIVELY - show how& why works.
And so a whole set of Intellectual patterns are relegated to the Social
level in the MoQ according to Bo.
Once again, Pirsig fails to understand what is so obvious to Bo.
Job done - MoQ mangled!
So tell me Bo, how is the mathematical concept of zero objective. Or the
square root of minus one.
On second thoughts, forget it.
Horse:
There aren't any - and there's even less in 0! Nice posts by the way
Horse
Bo:
FYI: The SOL does NOT say that the 4th level consists of subjects and
objects, rather it is the SOM (the "objective-over-subject" approach)
without its "M"!!!!
You've changed your tune over what you mean so many times in the last
few years Bo that it's almost impossible to know what you mean most of
the time. It used to be Subject Object Metaphysics As Quality Intellect
- SOMAQI. This changed to SOLAQI with Logic replacing Metaphysics and
then just SOL! But you main contention has always been that the
Intellectual level of the MoQ is Subject Object Metaphysics i.e. a
metaphysical position that posits Subjects and Objects as the basis of
reality.
In your essay on the moq.org forum you say:
"Right now I would have liked it to say */"Intellectual value is the S/O
distinction"/* but no more tongue-twisters, it's now simply SOL which
doesn't mean anything except being the first letters of all the former."
Which to me says that the distinction between subject and object is the
Intellectual value of the MoQ.
In other words, the Intellectual level of the MoQ consists of subject
and objects!
30 March Steve wrote (to Marsha:)
Pirsig's intellect--the manipulations of symbols--does not require us
to attach any ontological significance to the symbols as subjective
stuff and material stuff. To the MOQer, the symbols don't refer to any
kind of "stuff." The symbols are patterns of value, and they stand for
more patterns of value. There is no "stuff" to speak of except as a
sort of pattern of value. It is patterns all the way down.
"Pirsig's intellect" has varied from ".. equal to mind" (letter to Anthony)
to ".. no use to speak about intellect before the Greeks" which
(correctly) indicates SOM, but for confusion's sake he added the
"manipulation of symbols".
Now, all quotes who Mary brought indicates that intellect's purpose is
to control social value and I wonder how manipulation of symbols can
do that job and - moreover - how it can be an offence to social value
all the time that language is manipulation and has been around since
time immemorial . The true intellectual value is under your noses, but
no one wishes to "see through that telescope", a mystery all the time
that so much of the Pirsig's supports the SOL
All this about symbols not stuff is kindergarten "stuff" and totally
unasked for, but with enough "ontology" and "cosmology" interspersed
it sounds very learned ..and the MOQ can go on as another somish
toothless idea. Steve forbade me to reply, a new tactics in the hope
that his bluffs will not be called.
Yeah this philosophy stuff is just silly really. I mean that's what the
MoQ is supposed to get rid of isn't it? Philosophy and big words and
stuff that make other people sound clever. Who needs it?
OMG!
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
