[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Dave,


> As you are aware this site originated with Lila Squad which purpose was in
> general to compare, contrast, and understand both ZaMM and Lila. As much as
> some would like I don't think they can or should be isolated. But when in
> doubt on RMP's position later should trump earlier.

Agreed, so when Pirsig says this in Lila:
 “The Metaphysics of Quality resolves the relationship between
intellect and society,
subject and object, mind and matter, by embedding all of them into a
larger system of understanding. Objects are inorganic and biological
values; subjects are social and intellectual values.” (Page 344).

...and these in Lila's Child (about Bo's SOL thesis):

"43. This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude
non-subject-object constructions such as symbolic logic, higher
mathematics, and computer languages from the intellectual level and
give them no home. Also the term “quality” as used in the MOQ would be
excluded from the intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives
intellectual meaning to the term quality, would also have to be
excluded from the intellectual level. If we just say the intellect is
the manipulation of language-derived symbols for experience these
problems of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur."

"79. Since in the MOQ all divisions of Quality are static it follows
that high and low are subdivisions of static quality. “Static” and
“Dynamic” are also subdivisions of static quality, since the MOQ is
itself a static intellectual pattern of Quality."

"88. I don’t remember not responding, so it must have been an
oversight. I don’t think the subject-object level is identical with
intellect. Intellect is simply thinking, and one can think without
involving the subject-object relationship. Computer language is not
primarily structured into subjects and objects. Algebra has no
subjects and objects."


"122. I’ve always thought this is incorrect because many forms of
intellect do not have a subject-object construction. These include
logic itself, mathematics, computer programming languages, and, I
believe some primitive languages (although I can’t remember what they
are.)"


...and later this is the Paul Turner letter:
"The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation but some
kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in the MOQ
that I know of that leads to this conclusion."


...and still more recently this in the Baggini interview:

"PIRSIG: The alternative to “The Metaphysics of Quality says,” would
be “I, Robert Pirsig, says,” and that repeated many times sounds worse
to me. I don't understand this objection to a complete metaphysical
system that someone has worked out. It seems to imply that some kind
of confusion is preferable. It also seems to be an objection to the
rhetorical style of the Metaphysics of Quality rather than a discovery
of any falsehood in it, and in philosophy rhetorical styles are
supposed to be irrelevant to the truth. If the term, “static” is being
used here as it is used by the Metaphysics of Quality itself, then the
answer is, “All metaphysical systems are static intellectual patterns.
There isn't any other kind of metaphysics.” This is so because the MOQ
describes intellect itself as a set of static patterns."

...then it seems very clear that the MOQ says that the MOQ is an
intellectual pattern of value. How many times does Pirsig need to say
it? If someone doesn't understand that point, then that person does
not know what the MOQ says, because Pirsig has said it again and
again.

Best,
Steve