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

[Ian]

Are they identical ?
No. For the simple and oft stated reason that one (unnecessarily)  
limits intellect to objectivity.
Ian

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 1, 2010, at 5:34, David Thomas <combinedefforts at earthlink.net>  
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