[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[Horse]

Sorry Bo but all I see from your explanation is conjecture and wishful 
thinking. Pirsig does not subscribe to "SOM as Quality's Intellect" or 
however you wish to phrase it and has specifically and overtly rejected 
this idea. SOM is not the Intellectual level of the MoQ and your 
repeating mantra does not make it so. Both SOM and MoQ are Intellectual 
Patterns of Value. I've made some comments on your reply below:

On 20/02/2010 21:04, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> Horse
>
> 20 Feb. you wrote:
>
>    
>> Hi Bo Perhaps I missed it in my reading of Pirsig's letter to Paul
>> Turner ( http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html ) but I
>> don't see anything to support your claim. In fact what I do see is an
>> outright rejection of your position:
>>      
> My position is that the previous SOM (minus the "M")  necessarily
> must become MOQ's 4th. intellectual level (for it to have its alleged
> explanatory power) and this was finally affirmed by Pirsig in the said
> letter with him saying that it's no purpose in speaking about an
> intellectual level before the Greeks -  that "the Greeks" spells SOM in
> a MOQ context we all know. OK?
>    

No, definitely NOT OK. This is NOT Pirsig affirming your mistaken idea, 
this is you assuming something that is not being said, affirmed, hinted 
at or anything else. Pirsig has stated quite categorically that your 
idea of SOM as the Intellectual level is wrong.
>      "The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation
>      but some kind of other level is not clear to me. There is
>      nothing in the MOQ that I know of that leads to this
>      conclusion." Robert Pirsig to Paul Turner (
>      http://moq.org/forum/Pirsig/LetterFromRMPSept2003.html )
>
> But if the 4th. level is SOM then it follows that the MOQ can't be a
> SOM pattern, how dense can anyone be to claim that the MOQ is a
> subsystem of a subsystem of its own system. It violates the container
> logic that Pirsig stressed so vehemently and every logical rule there
> are.
>
>    

"If the 4th Level is SOM" is incorrect because the 4th Level is not SOM. 
The 4th level is Intellectual Patterns of Value which have created both 
SOM and MoQ. They are competing systems of Intellectual Patterns of 
Value along with a number of other systems.
MoQ is not a SOM pattern it is an Intellectual Pattern and no "container 
logic" or other logical rules are broken - in fact they are very much 
unbroken and only broken if one mistakenly confuses SOM for the 4th 
level. Or mistakenly confuses the MoQ for reality as you do.

>> So where in the letter does Pirsig do as you say and come within a
>> 'hairs breadth' of your (incorrect) position?
>>      
> In saying that the Egyptians in spite of their INTELLIGENCE had not
> entered the INTELLECTUAL level and that only with the Greeks did
> this transition happen ... on the Western hemisphere that is, the
> Oriental "intellect" is accounted for. The "hair's breadth" was his
> saying "not much before the Ancient Greeks", he had to leave that
> margin for obvious reasons.
>
>
>    
This is also where you end up twisting yourself into knots in order to 
accommodate your pet theory. Non-western intellects are also part of the 
Intellectual level and are not SOM but all of the Intellectual level is 
(by your theory) composed of SOM so the non-western intellect must be 
SOM. But it isn't, as you admit so you are twisting yourself into 
logical absurdities.

The above is not an indication of Pirsig coming within a "hair's 
breadth" of accepting your interpretation - he doesn't come within a 
mile of it. You are completely wrong in this respect and your continued 
misrepresenting of this fallacious position is dishonest and misleading.


Horse

-- 

Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, wine in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"... Hunter S Thompson