[MD] concerning SOL??

[X Acto]

> 
> Ron:
> I charge Bo with this line of thinking concerning all living beings, anywhere
> in the universe, that they see and think in terms of "subjects and objects"
> That this Objective fact, IS the intellectual level.

Steve:
I completely agree that it sounds very strange to say that the intellectual level is a single fact/value rather than the collection of ALL intellectual patterns of value. Certainly the habit of mind that involves asking "is this subjective or objective?" is one such pattern of value, but it is just one. Asking this question is not the only habit of mind/pattern of thought/intellectual pattern of value/pattern of manipulating symbols that stand for patterns of experience. Unfortunately, Bo has gotten stuck on defining the levels as each having a single value rather than collections of patterns of value of four types as Pirsig has defined his MOQ. Of course Bo is welcome to develop his own MOQ, but he has not demonstrated to me that thinking of each level as "the value of X" has much value, though he insists that doing so is the only way for an MOQ to make progress. It sounds like you are having the same frustration.

Ron:
Hello Steve, I would'nt be frustrated if my point would simply be considered, in fact, it's not about right or wrong
so much as practical use and understanding, if Bo's assertion of SOM as the intellectual level had some
benefit, some meaning past the assertion, some pragmatic usefulness in understanding it in this way
I['m entirely open to it, but he has yet to explain this aspect. He just repeats that structurally, it makes 
more sense to him from an objective historical perspective. But in my opinion it creates more questions
and confusion in reference to the MoQ than it explains anything what so ever. In fact it implies that subjects
objects logic and analytic are intrinsic in nature and are "discovered" by rational beings where ever
and when ever they emerge in the universe. Which, is a striking SOM assumption if you ask me,
I mean objective scientific realism would agree 100% with that claim, would'nt this ring a few bells?
send up a red flag or six? 
If one were to take this angle, how would one go about proving that the next step in evolution, the
discovery of the real fabric of the universe, was invented by a retired school teacher who has no
experience or evidence in physics to suport his claim? let alone any calculations or observations
to prove this theory. it has no pragmatic use what so ever to a physicist other than a novel way
in which to interpret data. 
It amounts to a kind of scientology, I mean, Bo could make a mint off of SOL like L.Ron Hubbard
but short of thAT......I dunno.