[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[MarshaV]

Hello Horse,

...to extend my view.

On Apr 2, 2010, at 2:07 PM, Horse wrote:

> 
> From Lila's Child:
> 
> 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.

It seems to me symbolic logic, higher mathematics and computer languages 
are rules for manipulating objects.  And the MoQ as the rational theory 
is a intellectual pattern, but represents and points to a Reality = Quality(DQ/sq).  


> 
> 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.

Again, computer language is a set of rules for manipulating objects, and the same
with algebra.  There are general rules to stand for particular objects.

And to say "I don't think the subject-object level is identical to intellect" is quite
a weak statement when he could have said 'The subject-object level is NOT 
identical to intellect.'


That's my view.      


Marsha 
 
 
 
 
___