[MD] MD FW: The intellectual level and rationality

[skutvik at online.no]

Paul and all MOQists

On 2 Dec. PT wrote:

Bo earlier:
> >Pirsig has said that there's only the DQ/SQ dichotomy, thus DQ is
> >part and parcel of the MOQ.  But I have admitted that MOQ's
> >"framework" naturally will remain behind as a static (intellectual)
> >pattern, while it simultaneously constitutes the Quality Reality
> >beyond - in the same sense as carbon remains inorganic while it
> >constitutes biology. Isn't this the same as your: "DQ outside of
> >the MOQ" same?

> Paul:  No, because you think metaphysics = reality, which I think is
> an idealist position.  See below.

Now I understand. You have a super-SOM overriding all 
metaphysics, thus when I say that DQ is part of the MOQ this 
means to you that the MOQ merely is an idea inside this super-
somish mind. No wonder we never seem to agree.
 
> Pirsig spends most of ZMM and some of LILA (see above) arguing that
> truth and objectivity are not the same thing.  The section on
> Poincare in ZMM is an example that springs to mind.  If you don't
> see that then I haven't the patience to carry on much longer with
> this.

Watch it Paul, Pirsig does in fact say that truth and objectivity are 
identical from SOM's premises - and goes on: "But if Quality is 
seen as the ultimate reality" which means if MOQ is seen as 
beyond intellect (by now the SO=intellect is plain) a different view 
opens up.   

You can't wander freely between LILA and ZMM this way. The 
Poincarè section was to show that SOM don't explain how 
intuition works, something that translates in moqish that intellect's 
static template misses the dynamic aspect of existence. 

The "many truth" formulation is based on MOQ being all-
intellectual pattern and is outright dangerous. The fourth level's 
subject/object value must not be tampered with, only limited in 
the capacity of being a static level. I hope that is possible?       

> Paul:  The same thing can be said about the "clash" between DNA and
> carbon. As I said to Mati off-list a couple of months ago, when it
> comes to the definition of any level I think there are several
> aspects to it.  There is the 'mechanism' of the level e.g. DNA. 
> There is generic 'value' of the level e.g. life.  There is the
> illustrative definition of the level e.g. organisms.

You go to something else when my arguments are unassailable. 
There's no particular clash between DNA and carbon. Once 
there's DNA, carbon is harnessed, but the general inorganic vs 
biology battle goes on. Moreover, the term "mechanism" sounds 
awkward, as "A causes B".    

> With respect to this I use the following definitions of the
> intellectual level:

> -- The mechanism of the intellectual level is the skilled
> manipulation of abstract symbols within a set of rules of valid
> inference and justification i.e. rationality.

Your argumentation seem to change as new inputs arrive, even if 
followed by the qualification that they are no Papal Bull.   

>as -- The generic value of the intellectual level is truth.

Yes, in the the "objective truth vs subjective opinion" sense. Pre-
intellect people surely knew the difference between truth and lies, 
but when intellect emerged it took truth to mean own value. ZMM 
says that Plato didn't abandon Good, he made it his own Good.         

> -- The illustrative definition of the intellectual level is such
> things as philosophy, mathematics, theology, metaphysics, the
> sciences.

The patterns you mention are surely intellect's, also metaphysics 
in the Aristotelian sense, but not in the Quality sense.      

> Paul:  The evolutionary relationship you are looking for is between
> intellect and DQ.

It definitely is, but as Pirsig just has informed you there is only the 
DQ/SQ configuration so it follows that the struggle is between
intellect and the MOQ. You work overtime in intellect's service 
against the MOQ wonder why?

Paul:
> Because you think the MOQ contains DQ you have a problem.  Pirsig
> used this analogy not so long ago and I think it serves to highlight
> our differences:

As said, the DQ/SQ configuration is all of the MOQ.         

Paul:
> You think of the MOQ as the paper which contains within it the
> static diagram, right?  I think of the MOQ as the static diagram
> which "can't contain the paper it is written on" i.e. DQ.

No, I don't think of paper, "representation" is an intellectual 
fixation, there is no end to it so I just see that DQ/SQ is the 
Quality Reality.      

> Paul:  Nevertheless, you are criticizing Pirsig's formulation of the
> MOQ and are suggesting a replacement.  There's nothing wrong with
> that but you can't seem to admit it, preferring, instead, to claim
> that you are simply saying what Pirsig really wanted to say.

Yes I have criticized the intellectual level -  it follows that the 
standard way of "containing" SOM is equally faulty , and it looks 
as I've been proven right, in the letter of 23 Sep. 2003 Pirsig 
admits that the initial take of the 4th level has created problems, 
but hedges it by saying that "any definition you give is more likely 
to  complicate ...etc." but goes on to add more confusion by the 
said "symbols manipulation".    

I could go on, about the (involuntarily or not) admission that the 
Greeks represent the intellectual level - which makes it SOM - 
the Oriental issue ...etc, but enough for now.  

Bo