[MD] irony and socrates

[skutvik at online.no]

Steve and Marsha

12 Oct.

It started with Marsha agreeing  with intellect=the S/O distinction.

Steve commented:
> > I'm not sure what you could mean when you say this. If your point is
> > that all patterns can be thought of as either subjects or objects,
> > even if I grant that that is true (which I don't since I think
> > concepts like good and love and infinity and experience among others
> > will give us trouble here), that still leaves the question of
> > whether they are *best* thought of that way. 

Bo:
Terribly convoluted this dear Steve. By "all patterns can be thought of 
as either subjects or objects" you possibly hint to Pirsig's method of 
how the MOQ "encases" SOM, but this is clearly wrong. SOM is 
"encased" as MOQ's intellectual level, it's the only way that make 
sense of Pirsig's own writings. Concepts are not intellect per se - they 
are the symbols that language manipulates  and language emerged 
deep in the social era. "Love" is an emotion (it's a concept, but MOQ's 
split is not Quality/Concept so that's no issue)  "Good" is the 
indefinable concept that gave rise to the MOQ. There certainly are 
other, but Quality is the mother of all "indefinables". 

> > Also, the habit of mind
> > of distinguishing between subjects and objects is just one among a
> > multitude of intellectual patterns 

The only "habit" the intellectual level has is to raise OBJECTIVITY over 
SUBJECTIVITY. In a metaphysics that rejects matter and mind it's a 
bit peculiar to start speaking about "mind's" habit.  

> > such as preferring simpler over
> > more complicated explanations (when all else is equal) and
> > preferring explanations that describe a wide range of experience
> > over ones which describe only a particular narrow set of experiences
> > and preferring explanations that cohere with other explanations that
> > we have already selected.

This is QUALITY'S "habit" according to Pirsig.  

                               -------------

Marsha replied to Steve: 
> Love, good, and infinity can be objectified and manipulated; that is
> exactly what you did in your paragraphs below. The Intellect Level is
> comprised of patterns that represent the process of objectfying and
> manipulating abstract symbols:  "Objectificationt is the process by
> which abstract concepts are treated as of they were concrete things or
> physical objects.  In this sense the term is synonym to reification." 

That intellect "objectify" is for sure, read ZAMM on how SOM emerged 
, that's the most splendid and convincing description of Intellect's 
mission, namely to "debunk" Social value by - first  - inventing "TRUTH 
(objectivity) and then the search for what is TRUE and what only looks 
true to us (subjectively) This is what the intellectual level have been all 
about since its emergence  with the Greek culture.  .  

I have a sinking feeling  about abstract (vs. concrete) and concepts 
(vs. what they conceptualize) these dualisms all belong to intellect's 
own S/Os repertoire and intellect cannot be outlined  from within. It 
must be seen from the MOQ and from there it is SOM - that simple

Bodvar