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

[mark_maxwell at talktalk.net]

Squonk:
I¹ve provided an example of an intellectual pattern that is not a subject or an object. Therefore, your statement here has been challenged:
Either,
1. The intellectual level grew out of the social level and then developed patterns that are not SOM, or
2. The relationship between the social level and the intellectual level does not conform to the organic metaphor, ‘grew out of‘.
IMHO both these destroy your position. I happen to prefer 2. Because I feel the process of abstraction does not conform well to a ‘grew out of’ metaphor. I think this metaphor is employed when the term ‘roots’ is applied, but abstraction forms a dislocation between the levels of symbols; roots form a continuity. If this dislocation didn¹t exist, RMP’s insistence that the levels are ‘discrete’ would be undermined.

Hi Mark, Marsha, and all,
Mark, I feel you are making a mountain out of a molehill. Pirsig¹s first slice of the knife is DQ/SQ. Evolution is only DQ.
S/O cannot be a metaphysical consideration.

Squonk: Hi Joe,
SOM is a metaphysical position - Subject/Object Metaphysics.

Joe:
Bo has shown that S/O is the intellectual level.

Squonk:
Bo has presented arguments supporting his view.
I think his arguments contain a flaw.

Joe:
DQ at the intellectual level is L. We are suspended in language some of which is indefinable like the levels of evolution which are only approached by Analogy or Metaphor. Instead of keeping the word ³social² as the level following the ³organic² level² replace it with the word ³emotional² which describes the bond between Father, Mother, Child the first social entity. I think you will find ³an individual² to be DQ. The relationship between Father, Mother, Child is equally DQ. And the levels of evolution produce Gold.

Joe

Squonk:
Emotions are certainly biological in nature. I agree with you there.
The moq describes the social level as behaviour learned by imitation.

All the best,
Squonk (aka mark)