[MD] concerning SOL??

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Steve
You obviously see it as your mission to protect Pirsig's teachings, but 
my mission is to protecting Phaedrus' original MOQ against the 
distortions from Pirsig. 

And Phaedrus' fundamental insight (in ZAMM) was that SOM (subjects 
& objects) were the INTELLECT that followed PRE-INTELLECT. In the 
final MOQ "pre-intellect" has become DQ and "intellect" is preceded by 
3 level, but that doesn't matter, the intellectual level was meant to be 
SOM, any other interpretation robs it of its power.

This is the case in a nutshell. The mystery is however that it was the 
post-hospital Pirsig who wrote ZAMM. How-however it was before he 
wrote LILA where he obviously tried to soften the SOM-MOQ transition 
and thereby screwed the latter up. How-how-however LILA coveys 
about as much supports of the  SOL as of rejection.

Paul Turner weren't able to reconciliate ZAM's moq and the MOQ and 
left. DMB also saw that his Jamesian travesty couldn't explain a single 
thing and left. That's the way it is, no one admits anything just leaves 
in hurt silence.    

Bodvar      





    
















On 4 Sep 2009 at 9:57, Steve Peterson wrote:

> Hi Bo,
> 
> 
> On Sep 4, 2009, at 3:47 AM, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> 
> > Hi Steve
> >
> > 2 Sep. you wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> Bo:
> > Do you find it strange that all biological patterns are about one 
> > single fact/value: LIFE?
> 
> Steve:
> Here you are pretty much saying that all biological patterns are 
> biological since biology means having to do with life. All biological 
> patterns have something to do with life just as all intellectual 
> patterns have to do with using symbols, but life is not the only 
> value on the biological level. For example, "might makes right" 
> describes a biological pattern that is not equivalent to "the value 
> of life." Hunger is a biological pattern of value that is not 
> equivalent to life. Killing is a biological pattern that is not 
> equivalent to life. So I would never define the biological level as 
> "the value of life" but instead define it as the collection of all 
> biological patterns of value.
> 
> 
> > Steve said:
> >> Certainly the habit of mind that involves asking "is this  
> >> subjective or
> >> objective?" is one such pattern of value, but it is just one.
> >
> Bo:
> > It was SOM (represented by his colleagues) that asked Phaedrus this
> > question and the fact that they saw it as a dilemma shows that it
> > was regarded unavoidable - Quality HAD to fit the S/O matrix -
> > something that shows that it was the ONLY way of thinking there
> > were.
> 
> Steve:
> Note that this question did not occur to Pirsig in his initial  
> musings on Quality. Instead it occurred to some of his colleagues as 
> a way to challenge what he was saying. Was Pirsig not participating 
> in intellectual patterns before he tried to answer this question? 
> You've limited intellect to asking yourself a single question about 
> objectivity versus subjectivity. Certainly asking this one question 
> is not the only intellectual pattern. I never ask it when I'm 
> factoring a polynomial for example or when I'm trying to decide 
> whether I should be using the word "who" or "whom" when I am 
> constructing a sentence. In fact, I'm only asking this question when 
> I happen to be asking this question.
> 
> Best,
> Steve
> 
> 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/
> 
>