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

[Laird Bedore]

Hi Guys,

It's been interesting watching how this thread has shifted and danced 
around, all the while conspicuously avoiding the original topic! This 
all started with my acknowledgement that "subject-object logic as 
intellect" (exhaustive) had problems, so I suggested we talk about the 
S/O split as a non-exhaustive subset of intellect to see if it's more 
palatable than Bo's original SOL.

Thinking that the MoQ is seriously opposed to SOM is a very dangerous 
road. The MoQ encompasses and tames SOM, and to some extent relies upon 
the fruits of SOM to provide strength to its argument. SOM provides an 
awful lot to our intellect and to trash it would be a catastrophic loss. 
An MoQ directly opposed to SOM would be anti-rational, anti-logical, 
self-destructive and doomed from the get-go. SOM just has a big ego and 
the MoQ knocks it down a peg or two. :)

So back toward the original topic again... does a revised SOL improve 
the big picture? SOL/SOM as just one (though dominant) mode of 
intellect, objective reality within intellect and not equivalent to 
primary reality, social and intellectual level empowered by use of 
abstraction/recursion... SOM can then be seen as a method of 
abstraction... Mmm, lots of possible discussion, if anyone's actually 
interested in discussing it, rather than bitching about aspects of the 
SOL already discarded.

-Laird


> 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.
>