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

[david buchanan]

Ian said:
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. ...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.

dmb says:
Oh, good grief. You're so clueless and clumsy. C'mon Ian, think about it. If 
the intellectual level of the MOQ is taken to mean S/O logic or scienific 
objectivity then the MOQ's highest level is also the MOQ's central enemy. 
What sort of "logic" could be used to make sense of something that absurd? I 
mean, is it not obvious that the MOQ is a metaphysical system and a set of 
intellectual patterns that is specifically opposed to both SOM and 
scientific materialism? What reason do we have to think the intellect would 
be equivalent to one certain set of assumptions or one particular worldview? 
Even in our own debates here, we use the intellect to discuss alternatives 
to those particular pictures of realtiy. If the intellect were limited to 
scientific materialism or to SOM, then it would be impossible to write the 
MOQ or to discuss it here. I mean, the falsity of that assertion is 
demonstrated here just about every day. Sigh.

_________________________________________________________________
Type your favorite song.  Get a customized station.  Try MSN Radio powered 
by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001