[MD] SOL

[MarshaV]

Steve,

I'm not disagreeing with Bo's SOL.  I read it a long time ago, and don't
really remember his point-of-view.  More recently I came to agree with Bo's
two points through a path of thought of my own.  Well not totally on my own.
I have certainly been influenced by the Bo's arguments, but if you remember
I rejected them as thoroughly as anyone.  It just seemed one day I saw the
intellectual subject/object trap, and that was the end of my rejections.  


Marsha




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of MarshaV
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 7:03 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] SOL



-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Steve Peterson
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2009 5:25 PM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] SOL

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.

Steve:
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.

Marsha:
I made it quite clear to you that I am not commenting on Bo's SOL, and that
I am commenting on two points of agreement with Bo.  

The RMP quote is hardly a categorical statement and in my opinion there is
nothing in the quoted two sentences that translates to "incoherent".  You
haven't shifted my opinion with the above quotes, not at all.      



>
> 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.

Marsha:
It wasn't a question, it was a statement that particle spin WAS objectively
REAL.  Again, I am not discussing Bo's SOL, and do not continue to bring it
into our discussions.   

Steve: 
What about the practice of deciding how to best represent 
a three dimensional object on a two dimensional surface? 

Marsha:
If the task is one where there is a 'me', a 'subject', trying to accomplish
it, than it is an intellectual pattern of the subject/object variety.  Seems
simple enough to me.    


Steve:
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?"

Marsha:
I do not understand what you are getting at here. I don't see the proposed
question as pertinent.  If there is an 'I' separate from, but participating
in, or acting upon, the patterned event, than it is an intellectual pattern
of the subject/object variety.  



Marsha


Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/