[MD] MOQ levels

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Bo,


>Bo earlier:
>> > I don't know what "problem" he refers to but "intellectual  
>> > justification of
>> > existing social patterns" sounds weird. As Pirsig says a person
>> > consists of all levels (at least in the Western world) and the 
>> > intellect will under no circumstances "justify" any social patterns.
>
>Steve:
>> It's only because of your SOL interpretation that this sounds weird. 
>> If you think of the levels as types of patterns of value this makes 
>> perfect sense.
>
>Do I not support the notion of the levels as "types of patterns of 
>value"? 

Steve:
It doesn't seem like it to me.

I don't know what your S/O level could mean as a type of pattern of value. The intellectual level as thecollection of all patterns of thought (ideas, rationales) seems clear to me.

Bo:
>Moreover Pirsig's books reflects the SOL interpretation in 
>the portions that count, I have shown it again and again, but you 
>(all) just clam shut when the proofs become too overwhelming. 
>Would you like to open a discussion on it when you have a lull?  

Steve:
What happens with me and your "proofs" is you use the MOQ language in such a strange way that I can't tell what you are talking about.

Bo:
>The intellectual level is static, meaning blind to the DQ/SQ 
>context, it's mission is to control the level below itself and so it 
>has done very well reflected for instance in the constitution of the 
>USA. But because it (before the MOQ) had no "level" above itself 
>to check its progress - merely being perceived as a freedom 
>movement that could grow into the heavens - it caused social 
>havoc.


Steve:
Taking the SOM perspective is to not see the evolutionary hierarchy of value patterns. Seeing that hierarchy is a better perspective that includes seeing the SOM perspective for what it is. I can go with you that far.


Bo:
>The intellectual/social struggle is part of the game and will go on 
>but until the MOQ is realized is dangerous. More than anything 
>this affirms the SOL, namely that the MOQ has a certain upper 
>level relationship regarding intellect. The latter cannot harbor a 
>patterns that limits itself, it is as absurd as the social level 
>spawning a pattern that limits social value. Well, society DID so 
>and that became the intellectual level, and it spawned one that 
>became the MOQ.  
>
>In this quote Pirsig speaks of "intellectuals" who are people 
>focussed at the intellectual level, but consist of all levels. What 
>he asks is for these people to come down from their high perch 
>and employ their social sense, not that their intellectual part 
>should become "social". This is so obvious that I can't fathom 
>why you cling to this weird notion that the static intellectual level 
>is malleable. Well I only know too well, it results from your 
>fallacious "mind"-intellect which is SOM's last defence.    

Steve:
I can't make much sense of the above.

Regards,
Steve