[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[Horse]

Hi Bo

On 31/03/2010 08:11, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> Hi Horse
>
> You know how to revive the discussion when at a low, just introduce
> the SOL ;-)
>
> 30 March you wrote (to Mary who had provided a long list of quotes
> that support the SOL) :
>
> Admittedly none directly say "the 4th. level is the subject/object
> distinction " but because intellect is the level that strives to control
> social values and none of the intellectual definitions hitherto provided
> explains any social control except the "objective attitude" i.e. the SOL.
> See?
>    

There's a good reason why Pirsig doesn't say directly (or indirectly or 
by implication etc.) that the Intellectual level is the subject/object 
distinction. It's because he doesn't see it that way. He also doesn't 
appear to agree with you that an "objective attitude" (whatever that may 
be) is required to prevent Social patterns dominating Intellectual 
patterns. This is just your incorrect interpretation.

> Mary (ZAMM ):
>    
>>> , the day Socrates died to establish the independence
>>> of intellectual patterns from their social origins.  Or the day
>>> Descartes decided to start with himself as an ultimate source of
>>> reality.  These were days of evolutionary transformation.
>>>        
> This one however is a direct and unequivocal SOL support. Socrates
> represents SOM in moqspeak and if he also represents "the
> independence of intellectual patterns from their social origins ..." ipso
> facto! This goes for Descartes too. How Pirsig could write this in
> ZAMM and then - in LILA - become so vague is a mystery.
>    

Probably because he had twenty years or so to think about it. Vague? To 
you maybe but not for most of us. You tend to see what you want to see 
and ignore everything else that doesn't fit in with your views and 
pre-dispositions. There is no support for the SOL in what Pirsig has 
written. He has stated this quite clearly on a number of occasions.

 From Lila's Child:
Bo: A while back, we spoke about the emergence of intellect and I said 
that in a way Subject/Object Metaphysics could be seen as identical to 
the intellectual level of the MOQ!
Pirsig: This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude 
non-subject-object constructions such as symbolic logic, higher 
mathematics, and computer languages from the intellectual level and 
gives them no home. Also the term “quality” as used in the MOQ would be
excluded from the intellectual level. In fact, the MOQ, which gives 
intellectual meaning to the term quality, would also have to be excluded 
from the intellectual level.If we just say the intellect is the 
manipulation of language-derived symbols for experience, these problems 
of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur.

Bo: Long before the Lila Squad days, it had puzzled me greatly that 
Subject/Object metaphysics may be viewed as the intellectual level of 
MOQ! I even raised the question in a letter to Pirsig, but he did not 
respond.
Pirsig: I don’t remember not responding, so it must have been an 
oversight. I don’t think the subject-object level is identical with 
intellect. Intellect is simply thinking, and one can think without 
involving the subject-object relationship. Computer language is not
primarily structured into subjects and objects. Algebra has no subjects 
and objects.

Personally, I'd call that direct and unequivocal rejection of the SOL!

> Horse:
>    
>> The above show that Pirsig supports the moral hierarchy of the MoQ -
>> i.e. that Intellectual patterns of Value should dominate Social
>> patterns of Value.
>>      
> Right, but how the heck can - for instance - manipulation of symbols
> "dominate social patterns of value"?  Language is manipulation  ...etc.
> and it has been around since the Neanderthals. Come to your senses!
>    

Come to your own Bo! How do Social patterns control Biological patterns? 
The analogy is obvious.

>    
>> In the above, where is he showing support for Bo's idea that the
>> Intellectual level consists of purely Subjects and Objects?
>>      
> "Consists of purely subjects and object"!!! What nonsense! Intellectual
> value is the "Objective over subjective" capability.

According to you Bo. Not according to Pirsig or the MoQ - see the above 
quotes from Lila's Child and whole bunch of other quotes as well.


> However, for this to occur the S/O distinction was first to be established, thus "subjective" is indigenous to intellect - its derogatory term for all that is
> untrustworthy. The social level knows no S/O. A true believer will deny that God just exists in his/her mind.
>    

Yep - and they''re wrong as well no matter how strong their belief.

As far as I have seen so far Bo, there is little intellectual support 
for your interpretation of the MoQ - certainly none from Pirsig. You 
rely on misinterpretation, rejection of data that doesn't fit your way 
of thinking and even go so far as to say that the originator of the MoQ 
project doesn't understand his own work.Your interpretation forces you 
to mangle the MoQ in order to satisfy your own ego - Social patterns 
undermining Intellectual patterns!


Horse



-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson