Hi Dave T. Impressive post, perhaps a most needed recapitulation of the whole ....(I missed the word) will of course reply, but look forward to the next instalment.
Bodvar On 31 Jul 2010 at 23:34, David Thomas wrote: > All, > > Since early in the Lila Squad days it was clear that Bo was skeptical > of Pirsig's further development of the Quality idea in Lila. He sensed > there was something wrong with the MoQ picture. When the S.O.D.V paper > was published he came to a full rolling boil and has not turned off > the heat since. It is becoming more and more clear to me he was and is > right. But not in the way that he (or for that matter many others) > will be happy with. In addition as I watch the ongoing conversations > here, except for a few of the MoQ priests, most if not all have some > similar concerns. > > For instance of those who see value in Pirsig's work none would seem > further apart than Bo and Krimel. Recently Krimel posted: > > >[Krimel in Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks > >thread] > > For about the umpteenth time I regard Pirsig's work especially in > > ZMM as a western explication of Taoism and as such very useful and > > valuable. When it strays from that track it becomes, er, uh, less > > valuable. > > I doubt Bo would strongly disagree with this statement and he may not > disagree at all. How strange is that? Actually not very. If sales, > reviews, and commentaries are any indication, ZMM is thousands of > times better liked and grocked than Lila. More people find it of > higher quality. Years ago I e-mailed a couple members of the "named > intelligentsia" Richard Rorty and Christopher Alexander about whether > they had read Lila and what they thought of it. Though both read and > thought ZaMM was great neither wouldn't comment on Lila. One hadn't > read it and the other had started, but never finished. Why not? My > guess is they he smelled something, a whiff of core wrongness. Krimel > calls it brittleness. Many think limiting the social level to humans > is wrong. Magnus, forever, has argued for more levels. And few if any > are entirely comfortable with the intellect and the intellectual > level. The claim of level discreteness and domination has been > questioned. > > For those who need refreshing what set Bo boiling is Figure 4 > (http://www.moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emmpaper.html) in Pirsig's "Subjects, > Objects, Data, and Value" paper is on the MoQ website. The diagram > shows the standard four MoQ levels grouped in two groups of two the > upper two (social/intellectual) labeled subjective the lower two > (inorganic/biological) labeled objective. DQ is above the levels > diagram with arrows point out and around the levels. At first blush > this diagram seems to indicate that subjectivism > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism) dominates the system. RMP > tries to explain this away in the text. > > Bo's is adamant that SODV diagram is wrong. The intellect (and > therefore the intellectual level) is the domination of objective > reason, logic, over subjective emotions or feelings. If we translate > the SODV diagram as Bo wishes the intellectual level turns objective > and the others stay the same. The only subjective level is the social > level. Compare this the original SODV diagram and ask yourself, "What > practical difference is there between these two views?" > > Is there any real difference between "intellectual quality" or > "objective intellectual quality" having the moral imperative to > dominant the lower levels? > > In both is not the social level still the bastion of traditional > values, myths, intuition, feelings, and unwarranted, subjective, > actions and conclusions? > > Are not the inorganic and biological realms still pursued by science > as much as is possible objectively? > > From my POV these two visions of static levels are for all practical > purposes identical. Yes, yes I understand Bo shifts the MoQ out to the > meta-meta ether, but that is basically a problem of the levels or more > importantly the entire system's order, rules, and definitions. So the > problem that Bo's thinks he has found is not really "The Problem." We > will have to look further. > > (To be continued.......bear with me I think slowly and type even > slower) > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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 > > 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
