Platt to Horse: No doubt in some instances Pirsig considers" thought" to be the intellectual level. But, in other instances he considers the intellectual level to be the subject-object understanding. There's the rub.
Andre: With all due respect to you both I, once again, jump in here to be corrected if I am wrong, what is the rub Platt? You continue: What I don't comprehend (and what you may be able to clarify for me) is how the MOQ as a static intellectual pattern can include itself in its own intellectual level, i.e., the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a larger one. Andre: I do not follow the container dilemma. Only, and only if, as you and Bodvar argue, you see the MOQ=Reality con-fusion the problem exists. Your question indicates the platypus it creates...but it is a paradox only with regards to your definition of the intellectual level. The MOQ is NOT reality. It is a static, intellectual representation of it. Pirsig has stated so often that when being confronted with theoretical dilemmas you need to go back to the assumptions underlying the theories...and critically look at those and invariably you find that there is something not right about the assumptions upon which the theory is based.Especially if it does not adequately reflects empirical experience.Hence the theory needs to be changed. Back to the analogy of the dictionary...look up the word 'dictionary'... does the word 'contain' the dictionary........? Is there a container problem here? Come on Platt. 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
