[MD] Bo's right! For all the wrong reasons? (Part1)

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Dave T.
Impressive post, perhaps a most needed recapitulation of the whole 
....(I missed the word) will of course reply, but look forward to the next 
instalment.

Bodvar








 




On 31 Jul 2010 at 23:34, David Thomas wrote:

> All,
> 
> Since early in the Lila Squad days it was clear that Bo was skeptical
> of Pirsig's further development of the Quality idea in Lila. He sensed
> there was something wrong with the MoQ picture. When the S.O.D.V paper
> was published he came to a full rolling boil and has not turned off
> the heat since. It is becoming more and more clear to me he was and is
> right. But not in the way that he (or for that matter many others)
> will be happy with. In addition as I watch the ongoing conversations
> here, except for a few of the MoQ priests, most if not all have some
> similar concerns.
> 
> For instance of those who see value in Pirsig's work none would seem
> further apart than Bo and Krimel. Recently Krimel posted:
> 
> >[Krimel in Bo's weak versus strong interpretation of quantum physiks
> >thread]
> > For about the umpteenth time I regard Pirsig's work especially in
> > ZMM as a western explication of Taoism and as such very useful and
> > valuable. When it strays from that track it becomes, er, uh, less
> > valuable.
> 
> I doubt Bo would strongly disagree with this statement and he may not
> disagree at all.  How strange is that? Actually not very. If sales,
> reviews, and commentaries are any indication, ZMM is thousands of
> times better liked and grocked than Lila. More people find it of
> higher quality. Years ago I e-mailed a couple members of the "named
> intelligentsia" Richard Rorty and Christopher Alexander about whether
> they had read Lila and what they thought of it. Though both read and
> thought ZaMM was great neither wouldn't comment on Lila. One hadn't
> read it and the other had started, but never finished. Why not? My
> guess is they he smelled something, a whiff of core wrongness. Krimel
> calls it brittleness. Many think limiting the social level to humans
> is wrong. Magnus, forever, has argued for more levels. And few if any
> are entirely comfortable with the intellect and the intellectual
> level. The claim of level discreteness and domination has been
> questioned.
> 
> For those who need refreshing what set Bo boiling is Figure 4
> (http://www.moq.org/forum/Pirsig/emmpaper.html) in Pirsig's "Subjects,
> Objects, Data, and Value" paper is on the MoQ website. The diagram
> shows the standard four MoQ levels grouped in two groups of two the
> upper two (social/intellectual) labeled subjective the lower two
> (inorganic/biological) labeled objective. DQ is above the levels
> diagram with arrows point out and around the levels. At first blush
> this diagram seems to indicate that subjectivism
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism) dominates the system. RMP
> tries to explain this away in the text.
> 
> Bo's is adamant that SODV diagram is wrong. The intellect (and
> therefore the intellectual level) is the domination of objective
> reason, logic, over subjective emotions or feelings. If we translate
> the SODV diagram as Bo wishes the intellectual level turns objective
> and the others stay the same. The only subjective level is the social
> level. Compare this the original SODV diagram and ask yourself, "What
> practical difference is there between these two views?" 
> 
> Is there any real difference between "intellectual quality" or
> "objective intellectual quality" having the moral imperative to
> dominant the lower levels?
> 
> In both is not the social level still the bastion of traditional
> values, myths, intuition, feelings, and unwarranted, subjective,
> actions and conclusions?
> 
> Are not the inorganic and biological realms still pursued by science
> as much as is possible objectively?
> 
> From my POV these two visions of static levels are for all practical
> purposes identical. Yes, yes I understand Bo shifts the MoQ out to the
> meta-meta ether, but that is basically a problem of the levels or more
> importantly the entire system's order, rules, and definitions. So the
> problem that Bo's thinks he has found is not really "The Problem." We
> will have to look further.
> 
> (To be continued.......bear with me I think slowly and type even
> slower)
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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/md/archives.html
> 
>