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

[Heather Perella]

Bo:
> 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.

SA:  Ok, right here is when Bo starts to overlap his value patterns and disregards what Pirsig is saying, as Ron seems to have, thus, I agree with Ron, as to what Pirsig's effort is here.  It's not that the levels HAVE to be split this way by S and O, it is that Pirsig is pointing out how S/O only goes so far in its' effort in classification.  Also, the moq goes much further in explaining what the levels mean, what happens between the levels, then there's the code of art, dynamic quality, etc..., which the sterile s/o is only saying intellectual and social here and biological and inorganic here.  S/O isn't even going as deep into what these patterns of value are, I mean s/o doesn't even say they're patterns or value, thus, doesn't recognize them as patterns of value.  But Bo doesn't stop.  He goes on overlapping HIS patterns of value and confuses them as the moq, pushes Pirsig off the bus, and steals it with all the donuts for his own.  Sorry had to add
 some humor.  

Bo:
> No level corresponds to any of SOM's categories.
> This makes a
> SOM-like split open up between biology and society....

SA:  You see, like Columbus that thinks he discovered the Americas, Bo tries to run away with this, as if Pirsig didn't know what he was doing, but it is Bo that right off the bat, as pointed out above, that Bo has now put on blurry glasses that begins to misinterpret and it only snowballs from here.  You see, there is no "SOM-like split" in this level analogy for these levels are static quality, which is one entity, so to speak, amidst the larger entity known as quality.  The levels and what happens between them is explained over and over again in Lila.  Bo has now ONLY focused on this S/O analogy that is, as Ron states, merely pointing out how what s/o understandings, the moq understands, and as I pointed out and most of us know, the moq goes much further in explanatory power; code of art, the codes between the levels, dynamic quality, values of patterns, etc...  Bo is stuck, he's hung-up on the very literal, objective way of conceptualizing this world
 and he's like a deer in the headlights with this thought that he might actually be noticing something and Bo's thinking Pirsig made a mistake, so, Bo is trying to jump on this for all it's worth to make the moq his own.  Yet, it's Bo that made that mistake and blew this whole event way out of proportion.

Bo:
> at best, more
> likely between Intellect and the rest and nothing is
> gained.

SA:  You see how far his overlapping static patterns of value have blurred this all up.  He went from his initial 'Oh Pirsig is saying all of the static patterns are only s/o', so, in his misinterpretation he freaks out and thinks he has to save the moq (he's said that many of times), but it is HIS misinterpretation that is freaking him out (thus, the problem is internally in Bo, something he hasn't been able to figure out himself yet but Ron's pointing out where Bo misinterprets the moq, thanks Ron).  So, Bo goes from 'oh my goodness I've got to save the moq from being wholly s/o' and Bo thinks he has to make the split occur in the Intellect.  Bo is trying to move this s/o split around and he puts it in intellect.  So, now Bo has gone on his own with this move that began with a misinterpretation and lead Bo to believe that a problem exists but Bo doesn't realize that the problem is his misinterpretation, he's objectifying his internal problem.

Bo:
> It's SOM in a quality garb.

SA:  You see, Bo thinks Pirsig was trying to resurrect SOM in "quality garb" with this s/o split stuff between social-biological levels, but it's been Bo's misinterpretation of this whole analogy of Pirsig's in the first place.  This snowballed with Bo and since he thinks he's saving the moq and has reached an epiphany higher than Pirsig himself on the moq it's only so Bo can have the moq for himself and live on in legend (at least that's how it would play out if Bo got his way).  Pirsig does all the work and Bo slips away with the booty.  Thank you Ron for posting this thread!
 
> 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.

SA:  Yeap.  Are we think the same thing Ron?  Have I stated above what your noticing?  There was much more to this post of yours and I'm going to read it, but, for now, I find no need to further comment.  This was good Ron.  Thanks.

SA
 
P.S.  These are excellent points Ron.  Very good indeed.  The only person that needs to wake up to this, is Bo.  We all know Bo's confusing this.  Thanks.  I left some of the most excellent comments of yours, Ron, below.

Bo:
> It is "knowledge" and there is no other kind than
> objective knowledge,
> and because objective requires subjective (like light
> requires darkness)
> ... intellect is the VALUE of the S/O distinction!
> 
> Ron:
> Notice the jump to a SOM conclusion. He assumes knowledge
> is objectivism.

> Ron:
> I'd like to know where this is stated in Lila. Pirsig
> in his letter to
> Paul Turner stated:
> "Another subtler confusion exists between the word,
> "intellect," that
> can mean thought about anything and the word,
> "intellectual," where
> abstract thought itself is of primary importance. Thus,
> though it may be
> assumed that the Egyptians who preceded the Greeks had
> intellect, it can
> be doubted that theirs was an intellectual culture. 

Ron continues: 
> I take this to mean that the intellectual level existed but
> the culture was not an intellectually oriented culture.

> Ron:
> The language definition only complicates things because Bo
> does not understand the implications that
> Aristotle's grammar has on the conceptualization of
> abstract and concrete "entities" of noun usage.
> He does not realize that HOW a language is structured
> determines HOW ideas are conceptualized as "entities". That
> Axioms dictate method.


> Ron:
> Likewise Bodivar should consider his own misunderstanding.


SA:  Here!  Here!