[MD] Windmills and Intellectual Pots

[Paul Turner]

Mati,

>Mati: I don't know what your premises and conclusions are suggesting and
>how
>that will contribute to find a basis to discern intellectual values from
>other values which is my motivation in all this.  "Idealist Assumption"???
>I
>don't know Bo's SOL being any more or less an idealist assumption than
>Pirsig's MOQ.

Paul:  As we have discussed before, I think intellectual value patterns can
be discerned as those constructed by consciously following rules of valid
inference.  I have recently given more detail on this and provided
references to the historical emergence of this skill in Greece, India and
China.  I've said my piece on the matter really.  Take it or leave it.

The "idealist" charge is not part of a positive attempt to define intellect
but a result of drawing out the consequences of Bo's idea.  The big
difference between Bo and Pirsig is that the former assumes that metaphysics
*is* reality whereas the latter doesn't.  Bo says that the MOQ doesn't just
refer to static levels and Dynamic Quality, it *is* all of the levels and it
*is* Dynamic Quality.  This is why it flips him out to say that the MOQ is
part of its own structure.  

Reality, to Bo, advances in eras where each era is entirely constituted by
its metaphysics.  So, according to Bo, we are entering the Quality era which
is constituted by the MOQ itself.  I asked Bo how he defines metaphysics
and, unless he corrects me, he said, "A logical, coherent universe of
thought."  So if reality is constituted by metaphysics and metaphysics is a
logical, coherent universe of thought, then reality just is a logical,
coherent universe of thought.  This is what Hegel said.

Apart from this there is another problem here.  It follows from the above
that until the MOQ was written static and Dynamic Quality didn't exist.  If
this is the case, given that the MOQ says that evolution is the migration of
static patterns toward Dynamic Quality, how did the universe evolve prior to
Bob Pirsig?

>I don't want to assume what Bo's is thinking in this but I am intrigued by
>his choice of definition. Pirsig statement was, "As long as you're inside a
>logical, coherent universe of thought you can't escape metaphysics." Try
>this on for size and see if it has the same meaning, "As long as your're
>inside a universe of intellect, you can't escape metaphysics."

Paul:  Well, that certainly isn't what Bo is saying because clearly he
doesn't identify a logical, coherent universe of thought with intellect, he
equates it with metaphysics, and metaphysics with reality.  

Regards

Paul