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

[MarshaV]

Hi Dave,

I think you, or I, have misunderstood Bo's position, because I think 
he has clearly been stating that the Intellectual Level has at its basis 
the Metaphysical assumption that reality consists of Subject and 
Objects (SOM). 


Marsha







On Aug 1, 2010, at 12:34 AM, 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


 
___