[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Mati

On 17 Dec. you wrote:

> First, I still fully support Bo's idea, I went on record and said this
> in Liverpool and I will say it again, I think he has got it right.  I
> realize that this puts me in a minority, but with the same passion in
> which Pirsig in  ZMM and LILA got it right, I still think Bo's has it
> right.  Does my support make a difference?  I don't know what other
> than to say he is not alone in his beliefs and we are either equally
> correct or wrong on this topic.   

Good to see you at the forum again. You have hopefully followed 
the proceedings from a distance and know about the ups and 
downs for the SOL idea and its present status.    
 
> Second, I will have to agree with Ian when he wrote, "If you want to
> argue, please don't just use claims like that's what Pirsig / ZMM /
> Lila / Greeks said."  I fully agree that any claim that Pirsig and his
> work provide explicit support of SOL is false, unless there is
> something I don't know.  I will also say that Pirsig's body of work in
> ZMM does seem to lead us down a path to a potential conclusion which
> smells a lot like SOL.  I realize this may not have been Pirsig's
> intension but I think Bodvar has shown us a possible interpretation of
> ZMM that allows seeing SOL as a basis for intellect. Whether this
> interpretation provides a correct conclusion about intellect or not is
> a bone of contention. 

Regarding the above point: I can't understand what kind of 
argumentation I'm allowed to use if not that of pointing to what 
support my claim. ;-)  

About Pirsig's work not explicitly supporting the SOL I agree. At 
the time of writing the books the problem of different 
interpretations hadn't emerged, so consequently ...

Your conclusion about ZMM leading us down the SOL path is just 
spot on and the main indication is the Romanic/Classic MOQ.  No 
one can deny that the latter half (subtitled "intellect") is the S/O 
generator 

> Third, Pirsig has largely excluded himself from this discussion.  He
> has shared on more that one occasion that all this discussion about
> Intellect as being pointless.  On this point I feel the need to
> sincerely differ from Pirsig's point of view.   Distinctions of values
> are important and this includes the intellectual values.   I truly
> believed that how we are able to discern intellectual values from
> other values is vital to advancement of the MOQ. 

The first two levels are more or less self-evident even if none 
metaphysically correspond to its SOM counterpart. 

The social level was once much disputed, the initial somish 
notion of mere grouping together is left. It's rather that of 
something of greater value er than the individual. This something 
is always represented by gods or forces.   

Then the 4th level where the same automatic somish notion hit 
and what the SOL has been trying to snap the MOQ out of. I 
cannot deny that Pirsig as late as "Lila's Child" repeated the mind 
definition and added the symbol manipulation, but his rejection of 
the "thinking" intellect (the letter of Sep 2003) so to say 
suspended that again. It has been two steps forward and one 
backward for the SOL, but progress all the same.             

> Failure to do so
> will likely set the MOQ back.  I made this point in Liverpool and
> believe the future of MOQ in the academic world will demand it or
> discredit it on this very issue.  I made some broad recommendations at
> the last conference and look forward to Anthony's progress on the next
> one and the possible implementation of those recommendations. 

Good.

> Forth, a number of months ago I exchanged a number of emails with Paul
> Turner on SOL. Part of my dilemma is that the support for SOL is
> non-existent and I wanted to make sure that perhaps I wasn't following
> some guy chasing windmills. ;-)  Within a short period of time Paul
> and I respectfully got bogged down into the same trenches.  I don't
> know of too many days that have pasted in which I haven't thought
> about how to get past the impasse.  (I haven't forgot about you Paul,
> still thinking for now.) Having read the postings over the past 3
> months I have seen similar impasses.  I don't know if this will help
> but perhaps the following questions may shift the discussion some.  

A little facetiously. Paul plans to become a St. Paul. His 
namesake managed to create a Christianity which was just a 
continuation of Judaism, i.e: the social level, and our Paul wants 
the MOQ to be a continuation of the intellectual level. 

> 1. Does the S/O divide or SOM qualify as a form of intellect? 
 
> 2. If yes, what argument, statement, or line of thinking in ZMM or
> LILA allows us to conclude that?
 
> 3. Based on the previous argument, statement, or line of thinking how
> does this support or exclude other possible forms of intellect?
 
> Just stirring the intellectual pot a little.

Better turn it over completely.

Bo