[MD] What Bo Doesn't Get

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Steven Peterson
<peterson.steve at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Dan Glover <daneglover at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 10:25 AM, Krimel <Krimel at krimel.com> wrote:
>>> [Steve]
>>> The intellectual level of evolution is the collection of all intellectual
>>> patterns of value.
>>>
>>> [Krimel]
>>> Exactly!
>>
>> Dan:
>> Not exactly. Evolution isn't a level, is it? Evolution is what drives
>> the levels. Evolutionary history is what the levels have in common.
>>
>> Now, what Steve might mean is, the evolution of the intellectual level
>> is a collection of all intellectual patterns of value. But doesn't
>> that go without saying?
>
> Steve:
>
> I'm not saying that evolution is a level. The phrase "intellectual
> level of evolution" is nothing meant to be controversial. The
> intellectual level, like all the static levels, is a level in an
> evolutionary hierarchy of value patterns. That's all I meant.

Hi Steve

Thanks for the clarification. I kind of thought that's what you meant
when I first read your post. Krimel seemed to take it the wrong way.

>Steve:
> I agree that saying that the intellectual level is the collection of
> all intellectual patterns of values should go without saying. It is a
> shame that it doesn't when it comes to Bo. The intellectual level for
> him is "the value of the subject/object aggregate." He sees each level
> as a single value rather than a collection of value patterns of a
> given type, but I am sure you are already aware of his take on the
> MOQ.

Dan:
I am aware of this, yes. Bodvar has built an entire edifice on a
misunderstanding. And it's not like we're discussing the work of some
long-dead author... we have Robert Pirsig's take on Bo's idea and he
quite simply doesn't agree. But rather than admitting he's wrong,
Bodvar insists the man who invented the MOQ is wrong! Unbelievable.

Thanks again,

Dan