[MD] The Greeks?

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mary. 

9 June. 

You have obviously succeeded in deciphering Matt's and say:
 
> And herein lies the rub.  The crux of my question goes right to the
> heart of the differences between the three groups I've described. 
> Depending on where you are in your journey, you either will or will
> not find value in seeing the nature of SOM as an insidious destroyer
> of equanimity.  If you find personal meaning in the MoQ, the purpose
> of the Intellectual Level looms large for this reason.  It is perhaps
> the central concept you have attachment for.  You think that everyone
> should feel the enormity of Pirsig's insights that you see, and are
> offended that they do not.  But this is a mistake.  To rail against
> others who have not is unfair.  Would I be understanding of that which
> I had not experienced?  If not, why should I expect that of others? 
> The MoQ can be understood on many levels, and any of them are better
> than none.  

You started this post with placing people in camps (in my words) 1) 
The ones who have found a solution of problems with the MOQ.  2) 
The philosophologists and 3) The Hagglers. The two latter are plain, 
but the first camp must be expanded with sub-camps. This is shown in 
your comment on the intellectual level as the fulcrum, a camp is 
needed for those who see the enormity of the MOQ but think that it is 
squandered with the bland 4th. level.  Pirsig relegates the role to all 
levels as that of "controlling" its parent, but with intellect this is 
abolished. That is when he was asked about it, else in LILA intellect's 
true role - as a "control" of social value - keeps popping up and it is 
always in its science & knowledge - i.e. SOM's - role . However, the 
"funamentalist camp" explains this away by  SOM being just one 
intellectual pattern and by this token the 4th. level becomes the mental 
compartment which we know as "mind" and the SOM that the MOQ 
were meant to be a relief from is back in office.       

Mary to Matt: 
> And so you have revealed yourself to lie within the second camp,
> Pirsig as academically interesting.  No doubt you will satisfy some
> and infuriate others, but as Pirsig said, "It's all Good", and I, for
> one, would not wish upon you the burdens necessary to fall within the
> first camp.

Wise words. Matt as a philosophologist and thus in camp with DMB is 
plain, that they have twittered over Rorty for a decade merely proves 
the point.. 

Keep up your good work.

Bodvar