[MD] differences between MoQ and SOM

[MarshaV]

Andre,


At 03:12 AM 10/20/2008, you wrote:
>Marsha:
>
>Paul's letter seemed to be the subject, and, and, and...  Well I said
>I was slow.  I'll try it from another angle.  I find patterns
>absolutely fascinating.  I can't help that.
>
>Andre:
>
>I should have clarified better Marsha. The reason for Paul's  letter was
>that Pirsig gives us a definition of what he means by the intellectual
>level.
>
>I agree with you (you seem to imply this and if I misunderstand you please
>point out...and forgive) that the MoQ should be seen as a static pattern
>"representing" an organic whole and that it is therefore difficult to be
>clear cut about levels and boundaries.
>
>But as in any undertaking you have to learn the rules and regulations first
>and define the boundaries, only then you can start playing with it, but
>until you do understand these, the undertaking keeps on playing with you.
>
>But there is a problem with this definition of Int. level, and this is
>confirmed through Paul's letter. If the intellectual level is confined to
>..."the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding
>particular experience and which behave according to rules of their own" as
>Pirsig says, then there is very little intellectualising going on and 95% of
>what now is put at that level should disappear.

Yup!  Somewhere RMP also states that the Intellectual Level is newly emerged.



>I mean, where does the MoQ fit in this definition? Or, if you want to play
>with it: if this definition fits into the MoQ it leaves the intellectual
>level a very lonely place to be in.
>My previous posts work this out in a little more detail. My conclusion,
>given this definition, is that we are back with Aristotle again and that
>therefore Bodvar is correct in arguing that the intellectual level is SOL.
>
>BUT!!! I don't agree with this (i.e. intellect is much more than that
>definition allows for) and fail, again, to understand what Pirsig is getting
>at. This is my short-coming because Pirsig is much smarter than me. But I
>would like this clarified once and for all and in such a way that it leaves
>room for DQ.

Maybe understanding the nature of patterns, in general, will give 
light to what is an Intellectual static pattern of value.  Maybe not.

Find a spov.  I like zebra because of the black and white 
strips.  There is a visual aspect to patterns.  I think.  It is 
certainly more than language.

Marsha


.
.
The Universe is uncaused, like a net of jewels in which each is a 
reflection of all the others in a fantastic, interrelated harmony without end.
.
.