[MD] A fine mess

[skutvik at online.no]

Andrè. 
  
7 Dec. you wrote:

Bodvar to Ron:
> > As said to Ian logic is universal, but the premises one starts from
> > determine the outcome and I meant by the MOQ premises ... etc. BTW what
> > relevance has the Wikipedia article on "truth" for the MOQ or its SOL
> > interpretation   .... as you see it. Bo

Andre:
> Bodvar, as you know, I am still trying to understand your reasoning. 
> have a few simple question for you; 1) What do you understand by
> 'intellect'?

I understand it as THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT/OBJECT 
DISTINCTION 

This (in the form of "the ability to distinguish between  ...etc.) is the 
original definition of the term "intellect", but has come to mean "the 
ability to to think" and this makes it difficult to grasp what the 4th. level. 
Pirsig himself has contributed to the confusion, in ZAMM the S/O split 
rightfully was called "intellect", but in the MOQ the said level is at times 
more like a mental, i.e. SOM's "mind".    

> ( I have told you that I have difficulty with this 'concept'. How does
> it differ from 'intellectual pattern'? 2) Does it 'hold' these patterns
> or are these patterns somehow 'outside' of it ít'? 

Intellect (the level) is a classification and "intellectual patterns" relate to 
the level like all other patterns to their respective levels. Inside 
outside? The MOQ is out of intellect so its classification process is 
valid at the MOQ too   ... like (the original social pattern) language was 
adapted by intellect and now used by the MOQ     

> 3) what makes you think it is 'static'? Do you mean 'static' as
> immutable? unchanging? incapable of expanding ?? 

DQ/SQ is MOQ's first axiom and Pirsig puts intellect at the top of the 
static hierarchy so intellect being static is plain. However the said 
"thinking intellect" is anything BUT static. 

The real 4th. level however developed as described in ZAMM as the 
quest for what's TRUE that automatically spawned its counterpoint 
"just ...apparent, seeming, fleeing, transient".  With Aristotle the true 
part had become "substance vs form" and here Pirsig says the modern 
scientific attitude was born. So you see the true/apparent (in 
moqspeak: objective/subjective) is 4th. level's master-pattern that has 
expanded beyond all imagination. It's difficult to see our present 
mind/matter dichotomy in the Greek search for eternal principles, but 
it's there.         

> Please remember that I suggested, for myself, the MoQ as a code of Art
> making quality sense and I still feel very comfortable there, and also
> that I feel very uncomfortable with the MoQ as an Intell. PoV cosily
> beside the SOM as, similar Intell PoV (with their only quarrel being
> that SOM doesn't acknowledge Quality) . I mean, you cannot sit beside
> somebody (SOM) on friendly terms who completely denies your (MoQ)
> existence!! 

Good point! The MOQ's relationship to itself is complicated, one way 
seen it is beyond intellect (the code of Art) because the MOQ is "out of 
SOM". Another way seen it is the DQ/SQ system itself and thus neither 
inside nor outside. I've tried to find valid comparisons (is Einstein's 
Relativity theory relative?) but as a metaphysics IS the reality it 
describes it kind of collapses. At least the 4th. level is a MOQ subset, 
thus the MOQ can't be an intellectual subset, that's for sure. 

Bodvar