[MD] Intellectual Level

[Platt Holden]

Hi Adrie,

No matter how you slice it, the intellectual level (described by Pirsig as
manipulation of abstract symbols) presumes the subject/object division and
is thus the SOL. Who is "manipulating" if not a subject? What is a "symbol"
if not an object?

Bo is right.

Beyond the intellectual level is the "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum,"
also called the "conceptually unknown." -- unknown in any static sense, but
nevertheless understood. (DQ)

As for rejecting Bo's idea, Pirsig admitted his interpretation of the
intellectual level was just "another opinion on the subject" and was not to
be taken as a "Papal Bull."

Platt




On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 5:15 PM, ADRIE KINTZIGER <parser666 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Marsha.
> p.s.   Bo was correct...
>
> ----------------
> Bo is wrong on all counts ,Marsha.
> I took the effort to investigate every word written, published, archives,
> the
> backs and forth's in the contributions, Paul Turners efforts, Dan's,
> Horse's
> etc, and on top of the pyramid, all the major work of Eccles, as mentioned
> by
> Pirsig towards Mc Watt in the moq textbook, as "intellectual " meant by
> Eccles in his work.
>
> If i take this in account, all of it, and especially the last,..Bo is
> completely wrong.
> Not only that, Pirsig actually improved Eccles point of view, by sharpening
> it;-
> taking the cloth of reification of the model.
>
> see for yourself
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Eccles_%28neurophysiologist%29
>
> Pay attention to world 1, world 2 , world 3 !
> This model was based upon reification.
>
> Pirsig only kept world 1, and all reality to reside under world 1, clearly
> avoiding the reifeid concept.
> If world 1 and 3 are the same, with transparant boundary's, there is no
> need
> or reason for world 2 to exist on its own.(Pirsig's model)
>
> World 2 is were Bo resides, creative imagination,DISPOSITIONAL INTENTIONS.
>
> BO IS WRONG ON ALL COUNTS!
>
> And he is not the copyrightholder of the presented work, Pirsig is!
> And his case remains fucking solid.
> Sayonara.
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/12/28 MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>
> >
> >  p.s.   Bo was correct...
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:32 AM, MarshaV wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > My interpretation of the Intellectual Level is based on reification.
> The
> > fourth level  is comprised of static patterns of value such as theology,
> > mathematics, science and philosophy. The way that these patterns function
> is
> > as reified concepts and the rules for their rational analysis and
> > manipulation.  Reification decontextualizes.  Intellectual patterns
> process
> > from a subject/object conceptual framework creating false boundaries that
> > give the illusion of independence as a “thing” or an “object of
> analysis.”
> >  The fourth level is a formalized subject/object level (SOM), where the
> > paramount demand is for rational, objective knowledge, which is free from
> > the taint of any subjectivity like emotions, inclinations, fears and
> > compulsions in order to pursue, study and research in an unbiased and
> > rational manner.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Marsha
>
>
> --
>