[MD] Which came first? Subjects and objects or SOM?

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Chris:

 
>> Steve:
>> In the MOQ intellect is a type of pattern of value and the MOQ itself
>> is an intellectual pattern. There is no such thing as an MOQ pattern.
>> In other words, I don't know what you are getting at.

Chris:
>"intellectual pattern" is something that the MOQ invents.  

Steve:
This term is something that Robert M Pirsig invented.

Chris:
>The intellectual 
>pattern exists in the MOQ only, and it does NOT mean thinking - 

Steve:
But RMP says it does mean thinking. He defined it as such. Could it be that you are not thinking about thinking in the way RMP is?

Chris:
>you ALL know 
>this!

Steve:
I certainly don't know this, and as far as I can tell only you and Bo know this.


Chris:
>  The tendency to extend the intellectual
>level far more then necessary I think is a residue of SOM thinking. When
>people start to think about their thoughts as separate from the world they
>are living in, making an effective S/O division that's really when the
>Intellectual level starts to grow, you all know me to hold this position.
>Furthermore, this special way of perceiving the world/everything then puts
>everything within frames of it's own - the SOM, and "thinking" is then
>forever associated with this - indeed this is what "thinking" MEANS to all
>intents and purposes. 

Steve:
If thinking means makin effective S/O distinction and that distinction is intellect, doesn't that mean that intellect is thinking?

Chris:
>Furthermore, when this view takes hold, it is
>naturally so that it says that "thinking" has always been around, logical
>thinking, illogical thinking - it doesn't matter, it's Thinking all the
>same. Since this is a fundamental way of perceiving the world this becomes
>the most basic and natural way of things, Thinking is fundamental, and makes
>up the world.
>
>When the MOQ comes along and says that there really is no such thing as
>thinking, 

Steve:
Where does Pirsig say there is no such thing as thinking?


>it does so within this frame of referances which has become
>fundamental, and impossible to escape - the languages we use is formed by
>this notion (even the word notion). So, when Bodvar (and now I) say that the
>intellectual level is only the Subject/Object division, this poses a
>problem.
>
>"But people has always been thinking!" you say, and "what about animals,
>aren't they thinking?" - "the people of ancient Mesopotamia, weren't they
>thinking?" Yes, they were, and, yes, they are, if you use "thinking" the way
>it has been used now for about 2000 years. 

Steve:
This is not what Pirsig means by thinking. He says that it is the manipulations of abstract symbols that stand for patterns of experience. Animals don't do that.

Chris:
>But not in a MOQ sense. In our
>reality there is no such thing as thinking, there is only Quality, and the
>way it's manifested. 


Steve:
One way that Quality is manifested is thoughts.

Chris
>For the last 2000 years there has been the notion that thinking has always
>been around, and it just differed a bit, then the MOQ comes along and says -
>no, not really. 

Steve:
This is true.

Chris:
>But that thing, that notion of thinking always being around
>in different ways makes up a world view that is so different from any other
>things that has been around and will be around I'll wager, that it
>constitutes a Level in the MOQ book.

Steve:
A level is a type of pattern of value and patterns of thought are indeed distinct from social patterns.

Chris:
>So, when I see people anxiously wanting to extend the intellectual level
>further and further I think it is just residues of the grip that this S/O
>world view still has on us all.

Steve:
I don't know who is trying to extent intellect to animals as ou suggest.

Regards,
Steve