[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[ian glendinning]

Hi Laramie,

There are parts of Mark's contributions to this thread I'm not
following but like you he also pointed out most of your "What I found
interesting about "THE SOL." was the idea that the MoQ represents
another level.  Pirsig didn't seem to approve, but I think either this
is true, or you are correct that there is no Intellectual Level."

My own struggle with accepting a clear intellectual level is not new.
This is one reason I was prepared to see Bo's SOLAQI as a valid
intepretation. Still do in fact, as a holding position. (I currently
see Arlo's level of social imposition as maybe a better angle to grade
different forms of intellectual rationality ... but ... anyway.) If we
simply treat "intellect" in Pirsig's own development of the MoQ as
Good-Old-Fashioned traditional "scientific" rationality (logically
positive, objective, etc), then we need space, a further evolutionary
layer for better forms of rationality, like the MoQ itself.

Paul did indeed expand on this recursion, the MoQ inlcuding itself ...
and its own future evolution.

Originality is overrated IMHO, what matters is whether the idea is any good.
Nothing (very little) new under the sun.
Ian

On 1/1/07, LARAMIE LOEWEN <jeffersonrank1 at msn.com> wrote:
> Hi Ham,
>
> Thanks for sharing some material from the archives.
>
> What I found interesting about "THE SOL." was the idea that the MoQ
> represents another level.  Pirsig didn't seem to approve, but I think either
> this is true, or you are correct that there is no Intellectual Level (although
> in a different sense than you imply). As Skutvik argues, "a higher
> ground is needed to see the outline of something".  This doesn't take
> anything away from Pirsig - indeed, it suggests he basically pioneered
> a new level of human potential!  Superhuman, some might say.
>
> Happy New Year, Ham.
>
> Cheers,
> Laramie
>