[MD] Letter to Bodvar Skutvik From Robert M Pirsig, September 15, 2000

[skutvik at online.no]

All MOQists

26 Aug. Ron delivered a critique of my SOL essay 

> Ron: I have reproduced Bodivars only known rational appeal to how SOL
> functions in a hope to resolve the misunderstanding and difference of
> SOL and MoQ. My own statements and quotes from Robert Pirsig are
> inserted. 

I take the liberty to edit it, no one takes the trouble to read through 
reams of text to arrive at the first point which is this

The SOL:
The Romantic/Classic split was left for the Dynamic/Static one in LILA
but "intellectual quality" remains as a static level and ought to be
the VALUE of the S/O divide, but Pirsig had found a new way of
disposing of the S/O, namely the said "standard procedure" that says
that the two lower levels are "objective" and the two upper are
"subjective" 

    Lila's Child (LC) annotation # 4 
    My earlier view when I was concentrating on the confusion 
    of subject/object thinking, was to get rid of them entirely to 
    help clarify things. Later I began to see it's not necessary 
    to get rid of them because the MOQ can encase them 
    neatly within its structure. The upper two levels being 
    subjective and the lower two objective.  

SOL:
I agree with the necessity of retaining "S/O thinking" and also that
the MOQ can encase it, but not with his method of doing so. It has
caused much confusion dubious statements, for instance (Lila's Child".
Page 529)

            LC:
    In the MOQ, all organisms are objective. They exist in the 
    material world. All societies are subjective. They exist in 
    the mental world. Again, the distinction is very sharp. For 
    example, the president of the United States is a social 
    pattern. No objective scientific instrument can distinguish a 
    President of the US from anyone else..  

SOL:
Inorganic instruments only detect inorganic value. But more serious;
what has subjective/objective and mental/material to do with quality
patterns? In LILA Pirsig (correctly) shows that inorganic value does
not correspond to substance, thus intellectual value doesn't correspond
to mind. No level corresponds to any of SOM's categories. This makes a
SOM-like split open up between biology and society .... at best, more
likely between Intellect and the rest and nothing is gained. It's SOM
in a quality garb. 

Ron:
> This is Bodivars first misunderstanding of Pirsigs attempt to explain
> MoQ levels from an SOM perspective. Notice how he immediately compares
> and contrasts this attempt with the MoQ interpretation conflating the
> two. He does not notice how Pirsig is displaying how the two
> intellectual patterns interpret the same data. 

Bo now:
I really admire you for understanding these subtle points, but you 
are wrong if you don't think I "objectively" considered all points of 
views, and had Pirsig said "... from SOM seen all biological 
patterns are objective" but he actually says "In the MOQ all 
organisms are objective..."  so I think I'm justified in my criticism of 
this way of encasing SOM  


SOL continued: 
In spite of this Pirsig repeatedly - inadvertently - returns to his initial 
correct insight and presents intellect as the S/O divide alone. He 
says that he saw no need to define intellect, everybody know what 
it means and my dictionary says: "The power of the mind to reason 
contrasted with feeling and instincts". "Mind" can be omitted 
without losing any meaning and because reason is objectivity itself 
and feeling is subjectivity itself .. intellect is the S/O distinction. 
What screws it all up is the notion of a mind doing the 
intellectualization, while it's intellect that does the mind/matter-
ization.  

Ron:
> Bodivar is unaware he is using a culturally SOM defined definition of
> the term "intellect".

Bo now:
What is a non-cultural definition of INTELLECT? When I (thanks to 
you) read my SOL essay again I'm struck of its quality: This one 
for instance

    "What screws it all up is the notion of a mind doing the 
    intellectualization, while it's intellect that does the 
    mind/matter-ization"

... is a gem (according to my conceited self) and why this point 
evades you (all)  is a mystery. But some day there must arrive a 
thinker (with the credentials that makes it impossible to ignore him) 
who will take up the challenge.  


Next instalment coming soon

Bo