On May 6, 2010, at 8:14 AM, [email protected] wrote: > Greetings Marsha > > 4 May.you wrote: > >> Hi Bo, Just feeling the need to reaffirm my agreement with you that the >> Intellectual Level is comprised of intellectual patterns as SOM and >> represent reified concepts and the rules for their manipulation. >> Intellectual patterns create false boundaries, giving the illusion of >> independence, or thingness. For me understand this fourth level to >> represent a formalized subject/object level where the subjective is >> supposedly stripped from the experience to reveal an objective truth. >> "The question of "How do you justify the statement that Quality equals >> reality?" was the best one. The correct answer from a MOQ perspective >> is, "by the harmony it produces", but this answer is only for people >> who already understand the MOQ. Those who don't can't see the harmony >> and for them this answer is meaningless." (Pirsig, 2000) >> I do think your point-of-view is more harmonious than the bits and >> pieces presented by many of the others. > > Sorry for the belated response, but I had to analyze it. I am at times > cautious of your phrasing, for instance: > > " The Intellectual Level is comprised of intellectual patterns as > SOM and represent reified concepts and the rules for their > manipulation". > > I don't know, but the "reify" term ["To regard or treat (an abstraction) > as if it had concrete or material existence."] is hardly what > charachterizes the 4th. level. Look Marsha it's so simple. ZAMM tells > exactly how the intellectual level emerged. THE ABSTRACT/ > CONCRETE DISTINCTION is an intellectual fallout, not the other way > round.
I understand the fourth level to take a concept such as 'justice' or 'truth', which does not represent an object in an external universe, and turn into an object for investigation. 'Particle spin' is another example of a concept that is taken as an entity of objective investigation. This reification is accomplished by giving concepts artificial boundaries and imaginary independence. It is SOM through and through. > > "Rules for their manipulation .." smacks of thinking and/or intelligence, > but thinking precedes the 4th. level by hundreds of thousand of years > and the "manipulation" were the same for the Neanterthals as for > modern humans (only a matter of capacity). This is the fallacious > intelligence definition of intellect. These would be the rules, such as hjgher mathematics, formal logic and grammar, which are sometimes used to manipulate objects. > > For me understand this fourth level to represent a formalized > subject/object level where the subjective is supposedly > stripped from the experience to reveal an objective truth. > > But this is spot on. The objective, detached attitude leaves emotions, > morals and values subjective disturbances that has to be stripped > away to make way for progress. But/and here comes the juggler's act: > It was progress - the 4th. level IS the highest static value - but as > SOM (i.e. before the MOQ) the notion that the S/O schism was > existence's fundament created several nightmares, the social of > destroying law and order (Platt's point) and the metaphysical that > caused young Bo's "weltsmertz" back in the sixties sand early > seventies before Pirsig's ZAMM "saved" me . > > The question of "How do you justify the statement that Quality > equals reality?" was the best one. The correct answer from a > MOQ perspective is, "by the harmony it produces", but this > answer is only for people who already understand the MOQ. > Those who don't can't see the harmony and for them this > answer is meaningless." (Pirsig, 2000) I do think your point-of- > view is more harmonious than the bits and pieces presented > by many of the others. > > The SOL is no Bo hobbyhorse but Phaedrus' of ZAMM's point where > the first deliberations on the Quality Ideas was "pre-intellect/intellect", > this becoming Quality/SOM (the only level at that stage) And had the > final MOQ kept the 4th. level = SOM all trouble would have been > avoided, as it is the MOQ has wasted ten years over this quandary > with the pig-headed resistance against a return to the roots. I like to think in terms of Quality(unpatterned experience and patterned experience). I can ignore the pre-intellect and intellect confusion. But for the record, I consider pre-patterned or 'unpatterned experience' to be a much better label than the confusing 'pre-intellect.' And I prefer simply 'patterned experience' to 'intellect' when it comes to describing the application of static patterns. Because my point-of-view is so much influenced by my reading of Buddhist texts, I try to stay out of your line of argument. I think you are on the correct track, but I don't want to confuse the issue with my more Eastern flavored perspective. Marsha ___ 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
