[MD] irony and socrates

[skutvik at online.no]

Ian

11 Oct.

Bo before
> > "OK, maybe the best "conventional" (SOM-based) book, but the ever best
> > is LILA that conveys MOQ's view - had only the intellctual level issue
> > been settled, but I feel now that David Buchananan is away that the SOL
> > (intellect=SOM) is accepted, but you see the trouble, all who read LILA
> > and its ambiguous 4th. level grabs the conventional "intellect = mind"
> > interpretation. Your own position here is unclear."

Ian:
> So many things wrong.
> No one is accepting SOM as the definition of intellect, with or
> without Dave. And it's easy to see that the mental / mind realm covers
> both social and intellectual communication and representation - so
> no-one is making that mistake either.

The same "effect" effects you. When Pirsig writes freely from MOQ's 
premises the "SOM-intellect" emerges like the new particle from a 
physicist's equation, but when asked directly it's so woolly that no one 
can conclude anything. Paul Turner asked (in his letter of 2003)  and 
Pirsig dropped the mind-intellect forcefully - he also said that it was 
no use speaking about an intellect before the Greeks ("Greek" in a 
MOQ context spells SOM) -  but to undermine this he added the 
"manipulation of symbols" definition which is the "thought-intellect" in 
a new guise and for good measure he threw in the "Oriental non-S/O-
intellect" different from the "conventional" Greek intellect (as if there 
can be an "Oriental" biological- or social level!) In a couple of posts I 
have pointed to proofs of Pirsig's arriving at the SOM-intellect, and 
because no one protests I concluded that there is a general 
agreement

Bodvar