[MD] SOL

[Steve Peterson]

Hi Marsha,

>
> Bo's SOL is not something with which I agree, or disagree, for I do not
> fully understand it.  I agree with Bo primarily on two issues: 1) that 
> the
> Intellectual Level should be understood as the subject/object level, 
> and 2)
> that the MoQ's dynamic/static point-of-view is best modeled as a level 
> above
> the Intellectual Level.


Pirsig commented on Bo's SOL thesis in his letter to Paul Turner as 
well:

"The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation but some 
kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in the MOQ 
that I know of that leads to this conclusion."

I understand your point that such statements don't account for the sort 
of give and take of a conversation, but what is clear to me is that 
Pirsig considered the SOL idea and the idea that the MOQ is some fifth 
level and found it to be incoherent with his MOQ.


>
> I do not think I have much to add to my
> interpretation, but I will try to explain one more time.
>
> For me, the Intellectual Level represents patterns/processes that 
> objectify
> and manipulate abstract symbols.  From Wikipedia's entry on 
> objectification:
> "Objectification is the process by which abstract concepts are treated 
> as if
> they were concrete things or physical objects. In this sense the term 
> is
> synonym to reification."  And while within the Intellectual Level 
> subjective
> values are rejected, these objectified(reified) entities are acted 
> upon by a
> 'subject'.  Voila!  Subject and objects!  Algebra and machine language 
> are
> sets of rules used by subjects to manipulate the 'objects'.  Ian very 
> nicely
> reminded me of the lecturing Physicist that said during his 
> explanation of
> the calculation to determine particle spin, that this is not just
> mathematics but something "real".  There, seems to me, is a very good
> example of the reification of something that is not immediately 
> identified
> as an object.

Steve:
I see deciding whether particle spin is just subjective or something 
objectively real is just one sort of intellectual practice whereas Bo's 
SOL takes it to be the whole shebang. What about the practice of 
deciding how to best represent a three dimensional object on a two 
dimensional surface? What about the practice of solving crossword 
puzzles? There are countless intellectual; practices that don't require 
us to ask "is it objective or merely subjective?"

Best,
Steve