[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 1

[mark_maxwell at talktalk.net]

All MD

Either MOQ's intellectual level is

1) = SOM, or

2) = what SOM means by "intellect" - "mind"



Squonk: Hello Bo,

Mind and intellect are not the same thing.



Bo: (1) avoids SOM.



Squonk: This means: SOM avoids SOM. I’ll leave it at that.



Bo: If intellect is pursued far enough its social roots will show.



Squonk: Think of it this way Bo…

Imagine Social patterns are money loans, and Intellectual patterns are Derivatives.

Money loans can be said to do good for people because they help them achieve their social goals, like owning a house or a car. Derivatives, on the other hand, make money from money only.

There are no ‘roots’ that Derivatives sin
 k into; Derivatives play by their own rules.

　

Bo: How it "..can carry on the MOQ is by the same token.

That way it no longer is "a loose gun on deck" that Pirsig's way of encasing SOM is (the two lower levels = objects and the two upper = subjects).



Squonk: Subjects and Objects do exist

The problem isn’t that they exist, the problems begin when it is assumed that this is all there is.



(Side note to Squonk: "what SOM means by 'intellect'" _is_ what the > MoQ means by spov and ipov.



Squonk: You are making the mistake of equating ‘Mind’ with ‘Intellect’ again.

Intellect is ipov only.

Spov + ipov = Mind.

Therefore, Mind = Subject.


 0ABo: SOL claims that SOM is the 4th. Q-level, while "orthodoxy" claims that SOM is ONE intellectual pattern.



Squonk: Because Intellect is ipov only, and not Mind.



Bo: As the 4th. level SOM's "M" is removed, only the value of REASON (the ability to distinguish between what's objective from what's subjective) remains.



Squonk: Metaphysics is an intellectual activity. Here’s the clue: S/O is the product of an ‘intellectual activity’, in this case, the one called REASON; An intellectual art form; an aesthetic relationship between intellectual patterns.



Bo: The 4th. level will stop being provider of ultimate metaphysical-philosophical "truths" ... and that's pretty revolutionary ...no?



Squonk: It’s
  pretty mistaken. Truth is an intellectual value, and intellect does not equate to mind.



Bo: (2) is the interpretation in which we recognize that though there are certain phenomena that remain the same (intellectual, social, biological, inorganic stuff), the interpretation of these phenomena is not set in stone, but optional - we can arrange them differently if we like.

Like, say into the MoQ. Well, then problem is what "remains the same" regarding the 4th level i.e. intellect's static value?



Squonk: What ‘remains the same’ is aesthetic value.



Bo: You Matt are from when Paul Turner wrote to Pirsig about the problematic 4th. level. He at least got a vehement rejection of the "mind" or "thinking" de
 finition and than a statement that "... it gives little meaning to the speak of any 4th. level before the old Greeks thinkers." (=SOM) but then Pirsig obviously felt that this was giving SOL the little finger and launched the "manipulation of symbols" definition, but as this is language the MOQ water were even more mucked.



Squonk: Remember the symbolic/hyper symbolic approach?

And now the Money/Derivative analogy?

You need to get onto the dislocation between social language and abstracted symbols.



Bo: Look to the most central Q-tenet of the upper level's purpose to control the parent level. Manipulation of symbols can by no stretch of imagination be seen as controlling social value (besides the social level manipulates 
 symbols galore by language and calculation.



Squonk: Calculation is not a social activity, it is an intellectual one.

And here is your answer: Intellectual activities like calculation are valued socially for the quality of life they bring via technology etc.



Bo: No, the only things that controls society is intellect =SOM and all the intellectual patterns LILA lists are S/O-ish to the core.



Squonk: Abstract symbols are neither subjects nor objects. ‘Knowledge is Power’.



Bo: I guess the above rhetorical question about (1) is what I've never understood, and might be said to be the primary problem facing such a thesis. Was Pirsig just promoting self-consciousness?



Squonk:  
All MD

Either M
 OQ's intellectual level is

1) = SOM, or

2) = what SOM means by "intellect" - "mind"

 

Squonk: Hello Bo,

Mind and intellect are not the same thing.

 

Bo: (1) avoids SOM.

 

Squonk: This means: SOM avoids SOM. I’ll leave it at that.

 

Bo: If intellect is pursued far enough its social roots will show.

 

Squonk: Think of it this way Bo…

Imagine Social patterns are money loans, and Intellectual patterns are Derivatives.

Money loans can be said to do good for people because they help them achieve their social goals, like owning a house or a car. Derivatives, on the other hand, make money from money only.

There are no ‘roots’ that Derivatives=2
 0sink into; Derivatives play by their own rules.

　

Bo: How it "..can carry on the MOQ is by the same token.

That way it no longer is "a loose gun on deck" that Pirsig's way of encasing SOM is (the two lower levels = objects and the two upper = subjects).

 

Squonk: Subjects and Objects do exist

The problem isn’t that they exist, the problems begin when it is assumed that this is all there is.

 

(Side note to Squonk: "what SOM means by 'intellect'" _is_ what the > MoQ means by spov and ipov.

 

Squonk: You are making the mistake of equating ‘Mind’ with ‘Intellect’ again.

Intellect is ipov only.

Spov + ipov = Mind.

Therefore, Mind =3
 D Subject.

 

Bo: SOL claims that SOM is the 4th. Q-level, while "orthodoxy" claims that SOM is ONE intellectual pattern.

 

Squonk: Because Intellect is ipov only, and not Mind.

 

Bo: As the 4th. level SOM's "M" is removed, only the value of REASON (the ability to distinguish between what's objective from what's subjective) remains.

 

Squonk: Metaphysics is an intellectual activity. Here’s the clue: S/O is the product of an ‘intellectual activity’, in this case, the one called REASON; An intellectual art form; an aesthetic relationship between intellectual patterns.

 

Bo: The 4th. level will stop being provider of ultimate metaphysical-philosophical "truths" ... and that's pretty revo
 lutionary ...no?

 

Squonk: It’s pretty mistaken. Truth is an intellectual value, and intellect does not equate to mind.

 

Bo: (2) is the interpretation in which we recognize that though there are certain phenomena that remain the same (intellectual, social, biological, inorganic stuff), the interpretation of these phenomena is not set in stone, but optional - we can arrange them differently if we like.

Like, say into the MoQ. Well, then problem is what "remains the same" regarding the 4th level i.e. intellect's static value?

 

Squonk: What ‘remains the same’ is aesthetic value.

 

Bo: You Matt are from when Paul Turner wrote to Pirsig about the problematic 4th. level. He at least
  got a vehement rejection of the "mind" or "thinking" definition and than a statement that "... it gives little meaning to the speak of any 4th. level before the old Greeks thinkers." (=SOM) but then Pirsig obviously felt that this was giving SOL the little finger and launched the "manipulation of symbols" definition, but as this is language the MOQ water were even more mucked.

 

Squonk: Remember the symbolic/hyper symbolic approach?

And now the Money/Derivative analogy?

You need to get onto the dislocation between social language and abstracted symbols.

 

Bo: Look to the most central Q-tenet of the upper level's purpose to control the parent level. Manipulation of symbols can by no stretch of imagination be see
 n as controlling social value (besides the social level manipulates symbols galore by language and calculation.

 

Squonk: Calculation is not a social activity, it is an intellectual one.

And here is your answer: Intellectual activities like calculation are valued socially for the quality of life they bring via technology etc.

 

Bo: No, the only things that controls society is intellect =SOM and all the intellectual patterns LILA lists are S/O-ish to the core.

 

Squonk: Abstract symbols are neither subjects nor objects. ‘Knowledge is Power’.

 

Bo: I guess the above rhetorical question about (1) is what I've never understood, and might be said to be the primary problem facing such a thesis
 . Was Pirsig just promoting self-consciousness?

 

Squonk: Reason asserts truth over good.

 

Bo: What about all that stuff _in_ ZMM deriding the paradigm he was excavating, deriding materialism, the S/O Dilemma that SOM produces, deriding dialectic, deriding the fact that we'll do what is reasonable even when it isn't any good?



Squonk: Truth leads to the fetishism of self, and this alienates people from each other, and their own being.

　

Bo: Yes, Pirsg's books carry (1) and (2) in equal amounts, but my claim is that that only (1) supports the MOQ.



Squonk: Both 1. and 2. are your own interpretations. They both suffer from the same flaws: Intellect equates to mind.




All MD

Eithe
 r MOQ's intellectual level is

1) = SOM, or

2) = what SOM means by "intellect" - "mind"

 

Squonk: Hello Bo,

Mind and intellect are not the same thing.

 

Bo: (1) avoids SOM.

 

Squonk: This means: SOM avoids SOM. I’ll leave it at that.

 

Bo: If intellect is pursued far enough its social roots will show.

 

Squonk: Think of it this way Bo…

Imagine Social patterns are money loans, and Intellectual patterns are Derivatives.

Money loans can be said to do good for people because they help them achieve their social goals, like owning a house or a car. Derivatives, on the other hand, make money from money only.

There are no ‘roots’ that Derivati
 ves sink into; Derivatives play by their own rules.

　

Bo: How it "..can carry on the MOQ is by the same token.

That way it no longer is "a loose gun on deck" that Pirsig's way of encasing SOM is (the two lower levels = objects and the two upper = subjects).

 

Squonk: Subjects and Objects do exist

The problem isn’t that they exist, the problems begin when it is assumed that this is all there is.

 

(Side note to Squonk: "what SOM means by 'intellect'" _is_ what the > MoQ means by spov and ipov.

 

Squonk: You are making the mistake of equating ‘Mind’ with ‘Intellect’ again.

Intellect is ipov only.

Spov + ipov = Mind.

Therefore, Mind
  = Subject.

 

Bo: SOL claims that SOM is the 4th. Q-level, while "orthodoxy" claims that SOM is ONE intellectual pattern.

 

Squonk: Because Intellect is ipov only, and not Mind.

 

Bo: As the 4th. level SOM's "M" is removed, only the value of REASON (the ability to distinguish between what's objective from what's subjective) remains.

 

Squonk: Metaphysics is an intellectual activity. Here’s the clue: S/O is the product of an ‘intellectual activity’, in this case, the one called REASON; An intellectual art form; an aesthetic relationship between intellectual patterns.

 

Bo: The 4th. level will stop being provider of ultimate metaphysical-philosophical "truths" ... and that's pretty=2
 0revolutionary ...no?

 

Squonk: It’s pretty mistaken. Truth is an intellectual value, and intellect does not equate to mind.

 

Bo: (2) is the interpretation in which we recognize that though there are certain phenomena that remain the same (intellectual, social, biological, inorganic stuff), the interpretation of these phenomena is not set in stone, but optional - we can arrange them differently if we like.

Like, say into the MoQ. Well, then problem is what "remains the same" regarding the 4th level i.e. intellect's static value?

 

Squonk: What ‘remains the same’ is aesthetic value.

 

Bo: You Matt are from when Paul Turner wrote to Pirsig about the problematic 4th. level. He at 
 least got a vehement rejection of the "mind" or "thinking" definition and than a statement that "... it gives little meaning to the speak of any 4th. level before the old Greeks thinkers." (=SOM) but then Pirsig obviously felt that this was giving SOL the little finger and launched the "manipulation of symbols" definition, but as this is language the MOQ water were even more mucked.

 

Squonk: Remember the symbolic/hyper symbolic approach?

And now the Money/Derivative analogy?

You need to get onto the dislocation between social language and abstracted symbols.

 

Bo: Look to the most central Q-tenet of the upper level's purpose to control the parent level. Manipulation of symbols can by no stretch of imagination be 20seen as controlling social value (besides the social level manipulates symbols galore by language and calculation.

 

Squonk: Calculation is not a social activity, it is an intellectual one.

And here is your answer: Intellectual activities like calculation are valued socially for the quality of life they bring via technology etc.

 

Bo: No, the only things that controls society is intellect =SOM and all the intellectual patterns LILA lists are S/O-ish to the core.

 

Squonk: Abstract symbols are neither subjects nor objects. ‘Knowledge is Power’.

 

Bo: I guess the above rhetorical question about (1) is what I've never understood, and might be said to be the primary problem facing such a t
 hesis. Was Pirsig just promoting self-consciousness?

 

Squonk: Reason asserts truth over good.

 

Bo: What about all that stuff _in_ ZMM deriding the paradigm he was excavating, deriding materialism, the S/O Dilemma that SOM produces, deriding dialectic, deriding the fact that we'll do what is reasonable even when it isn't any good?



Squonk: Truth leads to the fetishism of self, and this alienates people from each other, and their own being.

　

Bo: Yes, Pirsg's books carry (1) and (2) in equal amounts, but my claim is that that only (1) supports the MOQ.



Squonk: Both 1. and 2. are your own interpretations. They both suffer from the same flaws: Intellect equates to mind.



All the best,
 

squonk