[MD] The SOM/MOQ discrepancy.

[Andre Broersen]

Platt:

> Andre:
> The Intellectual level is not individual. The Intellectual level should
> reflect/ and be aware, of all.

Aren't you personifying the intellectual level as an individual who is
"aware?"
I don't see how a abstract level can be aware. Bessie the cow is aware, but
not property.

Hi Platt, this is a stimulating discussion and I do not pretend to have all
the answers but am eager to explore:
I agree that the individual brings to his/her intellectual level analogues
that are a reflection of the individual.
What I was trying to say was that all the 'levels' of the MoQ should
reflect/be aware of all 'individual' static PoV's. This of course includes
the Intellectual level (as part of a Metaphysics).

Platt:

> I have tried in my previous posts to make this clear in terms of the
> intellectual level being ( as Bodvar argues) the S/O distinction. In the
> spirit of Pirsig's  MoQ it is not. Ham has difficulties with this, SOL
> maintains this but I am getting used to the idea that Pirsig did not
> intend
> this.
Can you cite a passage or two from Pirsig as evidence for your view of his
intent?

Andre:

Pirsig has argued vehemently against the notion of subjec/object divisions.
He prefers to use the term static quality (Lila p119). Also on p158, when
talking about 'man', 'mankind', 'I', 'he' etc, and goes on to say:' Like
'substance' they can be used as long as it is remembered that they're terms
for collections of patterns and not some independent primary reality of
their own'.

These are just some examples I can pick out Platt. I mean, Pirsig has gone
to great lenghts to 'do away' with S/O distinctions, why (or how) then
postulate an intellectual level as being the S/O distinction??

I must reiterate that I do not have all the answers but find it very strange
if this was Pirsig's intent.

Platt:

I'm sure you detect the self-contradiction in your statement about what is
"true."
Platt

Andre:

Point taken Platt, keep my feet on the ground!!
Cheers