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

Sun Aug 1 04:07:50 PDT 2010

I wasn't trying to take over the thread, but merely present my 
relating interpretation of Bo's position.   - Marsha 

On Aug 1, 2010, at 6:43 AM, MarshaV wrote:

> 
> For me, the definition of a level is a reflection of how the patterns 
> within it function. I understand both the social level and the intellectual 
> level being 'subjective' because both levels of patterns are based on 
> their processing being the action of a 'self' on an external world.  The 
> inorganic and biological levels are based on 'external' objects in 
> Nature.  
> 
> Within the Social level a subject/object reality is the underlying 
> but unacknowledged  assumption; its focus being on social intercourse.  
> 
> Patterns within the Intellectual Level have a _formalized_, built-in 
> SOM point-of-view. The bases within intellectual patterns are 
> that the 'subjective' is supposedly stripped from the events to 
> reveal 'truth' about the objects in the 'external' world.  The objects 
> of this SOM, external world are reified concepts and the rules 
> for their rational analysis and manipulation.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Aug 1, 2010, at 6:03 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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

___