[MD] The Word is Not the Thing

[Andre Broersen]

Bodvar:
Does it mean that you tend to forget the symbol/what's symbolized
distinction as if normally unaware of it? I would say that we are told by
intellect to believe"that the twain shall never meet" because it is a S/O as
good as any.

> And so it is with the MOQ. It's intellectual pattern contained in  ZAMM
> and Lila is the map at the intellectual level. Dynamic quality
> experience is the territory. Many focus on the former and call it the
> MOQ. Bo focuses on the latter and calls it the MOQ. Like the heads and
> tails of a coin, both are right.
Hmmm, lets see what Andre says.

Andre:
Andre has said the intellect lies wherever it is (with of course the double
meaning of the verb emphasised) and in the process does not wish to upset
anybody, nor look for a cop-out.
The intellectual level is a problem because of its definition. It should
never have been designated as a 'level' separate from the inorganic, organic
and social because it is, through Pirsig's definition (and where else can he
get it from?) the latter three in combination (combining the values of the
three).

This makes SOM a social PoV.

To take SOM as a social PoV and recognise it as such and then add Quality as
the very foundation and expand it into what we now know and have learnt to
recognise as the MoQ I would say that the potential of intellect to
dominate, support and guide social PoV's started not with Armistice Day,
1918,  but with the publication of Lila 1991.

In other words, our 'uncontaminated' intellectual understanding of reality,
as far as our Western lenses are concerned starts with the MoQ

Our scientific understanding of reality may have started with Aristotle but
our anthropological, cultural understanding of reality has started with the
integration of both through the recognition of Quality as the starting
point. We owe this to Mr.Pirsig

The monism is SQ bathed in DQ.

IMHO and possibly to be pulled to bits and pieces.

Andre