[MD] A fine mess

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar:

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".

Andre,

Thanks for your effort thus far Bodvar, I really appreciate this. Lets go
through this carefully because it is important:

This definition of intellect sounds acceptable...but it is a classical, SOM
definition. We'll leave it for now just so we understand eachother properly.

Bodvar:

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

Andre:

Okay,so you equate the (MoQ) intellectual level with 'intellect' (as
understood by its 'classical' definition).However, you say that the MoQ
'arose' out of intellect  and therefore,to come to its full right should be
placed at a 'higher' level (and this causes the friction??)?
Within this answer Bodvar, you also mention the role of language (a social)
pattern used by both SOM and MoQ. Do you see this as another restriction
placed on the MoQ Intell. Level? A la: being 'suspended in language' (which,
of its own nature is restrictive/and divisive)?

Bodvar:

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.

Andre:

So despite Pirsig's assertion that he has resolved the subject/object
dilemma (within the MoQ as a whole), you argue that this is not so because
it is still alive and well at the intellectual level because of the
'classical' definition? Therefore the 4th level (i.e.intellect) is a MoQ
subset?

Can I just throw in here that the MoQ is not necessarily interested in the
true but the Good. Is it possible to 'intellectually' argue Good? Or would
you say that, given your definition of intellect,when we try this,we are
back with the Ancient Greeks again?

If so, we really need to find an MoQ definition of the intellectual level
but, of course Pirsig has done this already.

Must say...I like the code of Art!!

Am looking forward to your reflections.

Thanks Bodvar...take your time.
Andre