[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mary 

30 Jan. u said:

Bo before:
> Pirsig recognizes the confusion he has created - not by the term
> "intellect" in itself which indicates the correct objective-over-
> subjective attitude, but his own misuse of it to mean something
> resembling MIND*) . i.e. the mental realm where ideas are created and
> reside according to SOM. *) Letting "mind" (=subject) lose inside the
> metaphysics whose purpose is to reject the mind/matter dichotomy (SOM)
> is disaster. While the mind/matter aggregate as MOQ's 4th. level means
> it is domesticated. 

Mary:
> If I understand you correctly, what you say makes a lot of sense.
> Pirsig set up the rules defining the levels, so if the rules are
> violated, we must not be talking about Pirsig's Metaphysics of Quality
> anymore.  At that point we'd be discussing Mary's or Dave's or Bo's
> Metaphysics of Quality.  

Agree about me making sense ;-) However, Pirsig did not set up rules 
defining the levels" They are self-evident from MOQ's premises 
(Magnus' prolonging the social into absurdity was his not 
understanding the premises) when it comes to "intellect" I can't but 
say that Pirsig violated the Q-premises. 

> Since a level is defined as a set of patterns of value which evolved
> from the previous level (Social here); and the key distinction between
> any level and its parent is that it took on a life of its own, then
> most proposals about what the Intellectual Level is do not fit.  You
> could run down the list of things put forth as the Intellectual Level,
> and reject most of them based on Pirsig's definition of what a level
> is.

Pirsig said that he thought "intellect" was self-evident and IMO the 
term IS self-evident, it is the objective, rational approach that does its 
best to avoid the subjective. Why then did Pirsig say to Anthony that 
it was equal to "mind", which becomes the ability to think in the most 
general sense, A stone age person's pondering the best way to make 
flint tool becomes an "intellectual" endeavor.  

> Bo, I'd say you and I agree in general.  I've said I thought the Int.
> Level was all about an attitude of objectivity, the scientific method,
> the objective anthropologist for example.  You take that a step
> further and say it is all of Subject-Object Metaphysics. 

The section in ZAMM describing the emergence of SOM is identical 
to the emergence of the objective attitude - that much Pirsig also 
says, the crux is then if this - in a MOQ retrospect - is the emergence 
of the intellectual level and IMO the indications are overwhelming, 
and if so .....  

> I think between the two positions there is still a lot of ground to
> cover, 

... there is no ground between the two positions, the SOM and MOQ's 
4th level are identical. I'm happy you see that much but can't 
understand the reservations. The 4th. level is SOM or it is "mind" and 
if so SOM prevails.

> but what continues to disturb me is coming to the inevitable conclusion
> that Pirsig's definition of his own level is wrong.  

Again the term "intellect" is perfect, it means the objective over 
subjective approach. This may sound inconspicuous but meant a new 
world. Then Pirsig's many antics in Lila's Child about intellectual 
patterns with no S/O content ..etc. This is the intelligence=intellect 
fallacy that have haunted the MOQ since day one. But rest assured 
Mary, you do not violate any Pirsig definition, he has said many 
things.

Bodvar