[MD] the prime directive of the MOQ

[Scott Roberts]

Bo,

> > > Scott said:
> > > ...the gulf between the static and the dynamic is like the gulf
> > > between the finite and the infinite, namely, infinite. What I am
> > > saying is that if indeed intellect belongs to the dynamic, then
> > > claiming that it is static, even the highest static, is infinitely
> > > denigrating it. That means that either Plotinus or Pirsig is
> > > fundamentally wrong, and it is, I would think, important to decide who
> > > is right, no?

Bo said:
>From your definition of the term "intellect", maybe, and no-one
can change that obviously, but if the 4th level is just called that
and defined as the subject/object distinction? Do you see any
opening here?

Scott:
An opening, yes, but some qualifications are needed. First, it should be 
clear that this is the S/O[2] distinction, not the S/O of Descartes or 
Pirsig. Second, I wouldn't want to "define" it as the S/O[2] distinction, 
since that would exclude logic and mathematics. Another phrase for the 
S/O[2] distinction would be what I call "thinking about", but with logic and 
mathematics, the "about" is the thinking. Lastly, as SQ, it is not the 
thinking but the thoughts that result, that is, thinking about can be 
dynamic.

> > dmb said:
> > As I understand it, Pirsig and Plotinus don't actually disagree on
> > this point and Scott is the one who is fundamentally wrong. That was my
> > point. As I recall, Plotinus uses the term "Intellect" with a capital
> > "I" and this has led you to confuse things quite a bit.

> Scott said:
> You are referring to a different point. I agree that both Pirsig and
> Plotinus (and Merrell-Wolff) say that the Ultimate X is "beyond" any
> attempt to know it intellectually. Another mystical philosophy that
> also says that the Ultimate X is beyond any attempt to know it
> intellectually is Christian theology. In other words, if one considers
> "philosophical mysticism" to be entirely the claim that the Ultimate X
> is beyond any attempt to know it intellectually, then there is no
> difference between the MOQ and Christianity *as philosophical
> mysticism*, though of course they are very different metaphysics. I
> would rather say that they (Christianity and the MOQ) are different
> philosophical mysticisms, and that so are Plotinus' and Pirsig's. In
> fact, Plotinian and Christian mysticism are closer to each other than
> either are to Pirsig.

Bo said:
I won't take sides in this dispute, just say that I remember Pirsig
telling me (around1998/9) that he was reading Plotinus and from
Scott's input here I see that it was his Plotinus reading that
resulted in the most weird "Lila's Child" annotation (particularly
the one that resulted in the "What comes first" thread).

Scott:
Not sure what you are referring to. If it is the LC definition of intellect 
as "symbolic manipulation" then I don't see how that could have come from 
Plotinus.

Scott said:
> The point I was referring to in my post was the role of intellect in
> their respective metaphysics, which leads to differences in their
> philosophical mysticisms. Plotinus holds that Intellect, as the first
> emanation of the One, is, on the one hand, the "place to get to" for
> the mystic to contemplate the One, and on the other, that Intellect is
> the fons et origo of everything else.

Bo said:
In LILA intellect was still a static level that emerged from the
social level, but later - in some letters and LC annotation - it
changed to the Plotinian "intellect". Think of it; Pirsig writes a
whole book to show how  this Platonic, and neo-platonic, world
view emerged, and another book to show how the MOQ makes
short thrift of SOM, but then he goes on to introduce it into the
MOQ! What went so fundamentally wrong?

Scott:
Again, you'll have to enlighten me. I don't see anything in LC or SODV or in 
any of his recent letters that sounds like Plotinian Intellect.

- Scott