[MD] The Mythos-Logos issue.

[Horse]

Hi Bo

On 28/06/2010 09:19, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> Horse, All.
>
>    
>> I doubt there'll be a great amount of disagreement with Dave re: the
>> mythos ....:
>>      
> I for my part doubt DMB will come out and agree or disagree with
> anything. The fight against the SOL and thereby the MOQ has now
> become THE overwhelming cause and everything disturbing IT is
> anathema.  I can bring reams of text that underpins the SOL
> interpretation, but you folks just repeat the mantra about "Pirsig have
> rejected" (which he hasn't, on the contrary his way has been towards
> the SOL, only lacking the final approval, which he just can't utter,
> THAT much I understand).
>    

See this is the kind of nonsense which I object to. The SOL isn't 
anathema it's just nonsense. And the main reason why folks here respond 
to you is because neither they nor Pirsig are buying into your misguided 
idea. Pirsig has rejected your SOL - get over it and move on.

>    
>> The mythos, although originating for the most part at the
>> intellectual level is dominant at the social level.
>>      
> Both the Logos and Mythos terms originated after the intellectual
> level (SOM) had been established in Greece and is intellect calling
> itself "logos"  looking back on the social level which it calls
> "mythos". That no level knows the Q-context goes without
> saying.
>    

So the mythos originated as intellectual patterns of value and was/is 
dominant at the social level. And.....?


> The same goes for the subjective and objective terms which are
> intellectual to the hilt. "Objectivity" is intellect's view of itself looking
> back on the past as subjective ignorance and superstition. So in THAT
> sense everything is "intellectual" as it is now the premise creator in the
> capacity of SOM.
>    

Objectivity, subjectivity, mythos, logos etc. are all intellectual 
patterns of value. Along with many other things like metaphysics and 
mathematics. They are tools and selecting one as the entirety of the 
Intellectual level is just plain silly.

>    
>> There are parallels here with, for example, the law. Both are
>> Intellectual in origin, and dominant at the social level.
>>      
> Criminal Law and "criminology" are surely intellectual, but THE LAW in
> the sense of social rules and mores like the Mosaic Law (Talmud?)
> Muslim Koran and the Ten Commandments that Christendom
> subscribes to, is as old as the social level. No society is possible
> without laws unwritten or written, it is the social level so to say.
>    

So laws just sprang into existence along with the social level did they? 
I'm not talking about customs and unwritten social rules (like don't 
kill members of your own tribe but do what you want to others). The Law 
(like history) is what gets written down and referred to and is 
intellectual by definition.

>    
>> There are aspects of the mythos that are also similar to the law, in
>> that part of the mythos' purpose is rein in biological (anti-social)
>> behaviour. Do what the gods want or else you're in for a whole lot
>> of pain. The mythos has other purposes as well such as explaining
>> how the world began, why our tribe is justified in stomping on yours
>> etc. etc. but notice that it is still to do with ideas and the
>> mythos is still an intellectual tool (ideas about ideas). Also note
>> that both the mythos and the logos are still centred around memes -
>> different types of memes but memes nonetheless.
>>      
> See how complicated it turns, particularly when you for good
> measure adding some pet "meme" idea . And I am accused of
> mangling the MOQ!!!
>    

That you don't understand meme's is neither her nor there Bo. The 
propagation of ideas via the social level (how else do they propagate? 
by telepathy???!!!???) is in no way mangling the MoQ. Unlike the SOL. Is 
this the best you can do?

>    
>> At least that's how I see it and unlike you Bo, I'm open to
>> discussion and, where it makes sense, to modification of my ideas -
>> I may be right or I may be wrong, but my ego won't blind me to
>> common sense. I also don't have to mangle the MoQ, resort to calling
>> Pirsig either a coward or not understanding his own work or talk
>> complete gibberish in order to put those ideas across.
>>      
> You are open only to a certain degree, but the MOQ is useless until
> the intellectual level is brought back to its original ZAMM place as
> SOM. This shines through in so much of LILA, Pirsig probably saw it
> and hasted to it to add a sentence that left a rabbit hole open.
>    

Nonsense - and more gobbledygook.

>    
>> To be sure, there are areas where I have minor disagreements with
>> Pirsig - such as the age of intellectual patterns of value - but I
>> don't think that this either undermines or damages the MoQ in any
>> way.
>>      
> In what way do you disagree? It's crucial.  According to some of his
> writings intellect sounds = intelligence, something that has been
> around since deep inside the biological level, but then - inadvertently
> perhaps - the true intellect forces its way and emerges as in the
> passage about the social level not having been transcended around
> Homer's time which points to the Aretê-SOM in ZAMM  as the social-
> intellectual ditto ... i.e SOL.
>    

The SOL brings nothing to the table with regard to the emergence of the 
intellectual level, separate and in opposition to the social level.
Intellectual patterns of value and by implication an intellectual level 
have been around for a long time. I reject the idea that intellect or 
intelligence exists at the biological level. They are quite separate. 
Intellect and intelligence emerged from the social level.

>    
>> Anyway, I'm sure that if Dave has a major disagreement with me he'll
>> say so. If he does we'll have a discussion about it and see where we
>> go from there. What I'm quite sure about though is that neither of
>> us will need the SOL to figure out or solve any differences we may
>> have.
>>      
> Yes, lets hope Dave will have the guts. And I also hope I will receive
> some explanation from you who showed such glee about the Bin
> Laden issue. The ever-posting Krimel has clammed shut. BTW I don't
> think that you Horse as the owner of this site and moderator should
> take side, your position carries some unduly weight and overawes
> people.
>    

While we're on the subject of clamming shut, you seem to have done so 
with regard to many of Ron's questions. Maybe because they are too 
difficult to answer and retain any semblance of sanity within the SOL.
If Dave disagrees with me that's fine - discuss, learn! I certainly 
wouldn't be offended if he did disagree.
Re: for your last comment Bo, I'm quite capable of having an opinion as 
a member of MD AND being the moderator of this list - I try very hard to 
keep the two separate. And why on earth would my position carry any more 
weight than anyone else's or overawe in any way? That's bizarre.
Finally, the only side I take is that of the MoQ as proposed by Pirsig, 
Ant, DMB, Dan and various others. This doesn't mean that I consider 
everything they say as holy scripture but it does mean that I oppose 
your SOL. Please note though BO that I am not saying that you can't talk 
about the SOL or continue to try and convince others on MD (or anywhere 
else) that your position is the one true interpretation of the MoQ. 
That's fine by me even though I don't agree with you. What I am saying 
is that I think that there is sufficient evidence to show that Pirsig 
does not accept the SOL, has stated so in the past and continues to 
think so as far as I'm aware. Given this, I believe that it is 
fundamentally dishonest of you to try and convince anyone otherwise - 
which is why I have asked you to drop it. If the SOL has merit it will, 
as you (or Pirsig) have said, percolate to the top. If it has merit you 
do not need Pirsigs (or anyone else's) approval or sanction. Please 
consider this and do the right thing.

Cheers


Horse


> Bodvar.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>
>    

-- 

"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa