[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[Horse]

Let the mangling begin!

On 01/04/2010 07:31, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> Steve and Horse and the whole menagerie.
>
> On 30/03/2010:
>
> Steve:
>    
>>> In the equation "2+2=4" where are the subjects and and where are the
>>> objects?
>>>        
> Bo:
> This alleged "refutation" of the SOL (based on Pirsigs "Higher
> mathematics.....etc. having no subject/object content") is based on the
> misunderstanding that calculation being Q-intellect, while it is  merely
> calculation that the mankind has performed since time immemorial. At
> least as long as it has manipulated symbols in the form of language.
> Totally irrelevant. The Babylonians and Egyptians (Hammurabi was a
> social level inhabitant according to Pirsig, remember?) calculate and
> reckoned using complicated mathematics for instance the
> Pythagorean logic that Pyth.  - and the Greek intellectuals - made into
> proofs and theorems to - OBJECTIVELY - show how&  why works.
>    

And so a whole set of Intellectual patterns are relegated to the Social 
level in the MoQ according to Bo.
Once again, Pirsig fails to understand what is so obvious to Bo.
Job done - MoQ mangled!
So tell me Bo, how is the mathematical concept of zero objective. Or the 
square root of minus one.
On second thoughts, forget it.

> Horse:
>    
>> There aren't any - and there's even less in 0! Nice posts by the way
>> Horse
>>      
> Bo:
> FYI: The SOL does NOT say that the 4th level consists of subjects and
> objects,  rather it is the SOM (the "objective-over-subject" approach)
> without its "M"!!!!
>    

You've changed your tune over what you mean so many times in the last 
few years Bo that it's almost impossible to know what you mean most of 
the time. It used to be Subject Object Metaphysics As Quality Intellect 
- SOMAQI. This changed to SOLAQI with Logic replacing Metaphysics and 
then just SOL! But you main contention has always been that the 
Intellectual level of the MoQ is Subject Object Metaphysics i.e. a 
metaphysical position that posits Subjects and Objects as the basis of 
reality.
In your essay on the moq.org forum you say:
"Right now I would have liked it to say */"Intellectual value is the S/O 
distinction"/* but no more tongue-twisters, it's now simply SOL which 
doesn't mean anything except being the first letters of all the former."
Which to me says that the distinction between subject and object is the 
Intellectual value of the MoQ.
In other words, the Intellectual level of the MoQ consists of subject 
and objects!

>
> 30 March Steve wrote (to Marsha:)
>
>    
>> Pirsig's intellect--the manipulations of symbols--does not require us
>> to attach any ontological significance to the symbols as subjective
>> stuff and material stuff. To the MOQer, the symbols don't refer to any
>> kind of "stuff." The symbols are patterns of value, and they stand for
>> more patterns of value.  There is no "stuff" to speak of except as a
>> sort of pattern of value. It is patterns all the way down.
>>      
> "Pirsig's intellect" has varied from ".. equal to mind" (letter to Anthony)
> to ".. no use to speak about intellect before the Greeks" which
> (correctly) indicates SOM, but for confusion's sake he added the
> "manipulation of symbols".
>
> Now, all quotes who Mary brought indicates that intellect's purpose is
> to control social value and I wonder how manipulation of symbols can
> do that job and - moreover -  how it can be an offence to social value
> all the time that language is manipulation and has been around since
> time immemorial . The true intellectual value is under your noses, but
> no one wishes to "see through that telescope", a mystery all the time
> that so much of the Pirsig's supports the SOL
>
> All this about symbols not stuff is kindergarten "stuff" and totally
> unasked for, but with enough "ontology" and "cosmology" interspersed
> it sounds very learned ..and the MOQ can go on as another somish
> toothless idea.  Steve forbade me to reply, a new tactics in the hope
> that his bluffs will not be called.
>
>    
Yeah this philosophy stuff is just silly really. I mean that's what the 
MoQ is supposed to get rid of isn't it? Philosophy and big words and 
stuff that make other people sound clever. Who needs it?

OMG!

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