[MD] The 4th. level's two interpretations. Part 2

[skutvik at online.no]

To complete my dispute with Matt of 26 Oct. I'll start with his last 
paragraph.  
    
Matt:
> 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?  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? 

(1) = MOQ's 4th. intellectual level = SOM

"Was Pirsig just promoting self-consciousness"? If this is supposed to 
mean "Did Pirsig define the intellectual level=selfconsciousness"? No 
he did not, but his first response to queries about the 4th. level was: 
("Lila's Child" page 64, annotation:#25) 

    "For purposes of MOQ precision let's say that the intellectual 
    level is the same as mind...."      

> I guess because I don't understand how your thesis avoids some of
> these problems as a point of Pirsigian exegesis, and I don't think I'm
> alone in this, it isn't clear _how_ we can take the thesis seriously
> until those problems are cleared up.  Not without, at least, handing
> in our Pirsigian ID cards.  The distinction between a subject as a
> consciousness and an object as a piece of the world being percieved is
> clearly an important distinction in the history of increased
> articulation of how we are, but that recognition is not SOM.

The subject - if you mean an individual, a person with name, sense of 
self, property, feelings, thoughts ... etc. is as old as  the social level. If 
one narrows it down to an organism with a biological "sense of self" it's 
as old as the biological level. But like most you seem unable to fathom 
what the intellectual level is, namely when the individual's perception 
became SUBJECTIVE and what s/he perceived became OBJECTIVE 
meaning that this distinction is existence's fundament. 

And as little do you seem able to fathom that there was a time when 
existence weren't S/O-divided, when language wasn't manipulation of 
symbols but the most effective means to get in touch with the gods 
and "forces" (like in prayer), when the individual did not regard 
him/herself an isolated mind, irreedeemably cut off from other minds 
and from the material  world, a world that only followed its natural laws, 
indifferent to observers. This pre-SOM reality is called "Social" in the 
MOQ for your information.

The usual reaction is the classical SOM-ish, to regard the past as 
ignorant, superstitious, backward, callous, subjective, emotion-ridden 
... etc., not having reached the OBJECTIVE, knowing, intellectually, 
detached stage. The MOQ however says that although the said 
objective stage is the highest good it is a mere static stage - called 
"intellect" - along with the abominable past which is calles "social" 
which in turn is on top of the "biological"  

Bo had said (to Ian):
> > The "Greeks" times have been deemed a fundamental upheaval by 
> > historians, philosophers, writers, thinkers ...etc. but no one had
> > interpreted it like Pirsig's SOM so it has not reached any
> > mythological status. This is the world-shaking revelation of ZAMM and if
> > you see Matt's blog as "debunking" it you are even dumber than he is.
> > You can mean whatever you want about my SOL .... even step on my blue
> > suede shoes ... but ZAMM's on SOM is inviolable. 

Matt:
> This just seems silly.  The notion of "classical Greece," as a time of
> Enlightenment before the "World" fell into the "Dark Ages," is a very
> distinguished European myth with a long pedigree.  Even after scholars
> and intellectuals stopped treating Ancient Greece as the Cradle of All
> Things Great, all still consider that time a hotbed of cultural
> change. 

It would be less silly if you noticed what I say, namely that something 
great taking place in Greece  is truly "a distinguished European myth", 
but Pirsig's interpretation is unique and far from any recognition, 
thanks to the alleged Pirsigeans who works overtime to dis-arm the 
MOQ..  

> My stupid close reading of ZMM and what Pirsig means by SOM aside
> (foolish me for engaging in intellectual dialogue), what is weird and
> strange above is the relationship between ZMM as a piece of
> intellectual scholarship and the rest of intellectual
> scholarship--i.e., it creates the impression that you are entirely
> ignorant of any other intellectual scholarship but Pirsig's.  Which I
> know is not true, but it is certainly how you appear most of the time. 

I ignore all "intellectual scholars" for the same reason that Plato hated 
all Sophists. To compare Pirsig's to any other "intellectual theory-
monger" endangers the still feeble grasp of the MOQ   

    Plato's hatred of the rhetoricians was part of a much larger 
    struggle in which the reality of the Good, represented by the 
    Sophists, and the reality of the True, represented by the 
    dialecticians, were engaged in a huge struggle for the future 
    mind of man. Truth won, the Good lost, and that is why today 
    we have so little difficulty accepting the reality of truth and so 
    much difficulty accepting the reality of Quality, even though 
    there is no more agreement in one area than in the other.  


Bodvar