[MD] A fly in the MOQ ointment

[Horse]

Bo

On 21/02/2010 19:20, skutvik at online.no wrote:
> Hi Horse
>
> 21 Feb.
>
>    
>> 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:
>>      
> Is it your turn now to make a fool of yourself?

[Horse]
No, it's my turn to try and persuade you away from continuing to display 
your own ignorance and foolishness.


> Whatever you think of
> my SOL the MOQ as an intellectual pattern is untenable.

[Horse]
Not according to Robert Pirsig whose work you are continuing to mangle. 
It's very simple - a metaphysics IS an intellectual pattern of value.

> The 4th. intellectual level is a subset of a subset of the MOQ and can't
> logically - except twisting it into absurdity - contain the MOQ.

[Horse]
Only in your head Bo. A metaphysics is an Intellectual Pattern of Value 
and exists quite comfortably at the Intellectual level.

> Pirsig
> put great emphasize on the "container logic" so why abolish it
> regarding the MOQ, but Pirsig does a few such salto-mortales
>    

[Horse]
Once again you claim that Pirsig doesn't understand his own work when in 
fact he understands it better than you will ever do.

> Bo before:
>    
>>> 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
>>>        
> Horse:
>    
>> 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 above about intellect emerging with the Greeks DOES
> affirm that the 4th level is the S/O distinction, however he simply
> could not say that Bodvar is right,

[Horse]
Because Bodvar is wrong which is what Pirsig has said on a number of 
occasions.

> I understand that, and he
> complicated matters further with the "symbol manipulation" nonsense
> and the equally nonsensical non-S/O "oriental intellect".
>    

[Horse]
There you go again - Pirsig is an idiot because he doesn't agree with 
Bo. In fact everyone who doesn't agree is either a fool or an idiot  
according to Bo. Perhaps symbol manipulation is a difficult concept for 
you Bo but for most of us it is not problematic. And your continued 
denigration of non-western intellect is risible.

> Pirsig:
>
>      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.
>
> The MOQ is no static level, Christ, how many times must I repeat
> that? It is the Quality Reality meta-level! What's for sure is that it
> can't be part of is own static range.
>
>    
>> "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.
>>      
> I thought people came to the MOQ for its break with SOM, not to
> preserve it, which is done if the MOQ is seen as an intellectual
> pattern,

[Horse]
Only if you first assume that the Intellectual Level is SOM. If you 
don't then there is no problem.

> meaning an idea on top of the SOM idea and by this token
> the social, biological and inorganic levels  are also intellectual
> patterns-as- ideas - and SOM in the idealist form lives on and so has
> all its paradoxes. Good grief.
>    

[Horse]
Good grief indeed that you seem incapable of understanding something so 
simple and elegant.

>>> 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.
>>      
> No logical absurdities at all on my part while you and the rest of "the
> orthodox clergy" ... voila! A non-S/O intellect is absurd,

[Horse]
Only in Bo-land. In the rest of the world it's fine.

> the proof of
> this is all the intellectual patterns that Pirsig lists in LILA clearly are
> based on the "objective-over-subjective" value.

[Horse]
Again you are clearly mistaken.

> And can you tell me
> how an intellectual level that contains all ideas since making fire, can
> regard social value as "offensive" and being equally offensive to
> social values?

[Horse]
It's all in Lila Bo - have another read of it.
> And how can Pirsig say that most major conflicts
> stems from the social-intellectual differences? Neither the idea-
> intellect nor the "manipulation-of-symbols" intellect looks like
> candidates for provoking much conflict.

[Horse]
I believe he refers to conflicts whereby social patterns and behaviours 
seek to undermine and subjugate intellectual patterns. If you examine 
those patterns you will see that there is plenty of scope for this and 
is a major cause of the sort of woolly thinking in which you indulge.
These questions you continue to raise really do show how little you 
understand of what Pirsig has said.

>    
>> 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.
>>      
> I will not participate in this childish "anything you say I can say 'no' to"
> game, try to concentrate on the issues at hand.
>    

That's what I'm doing Bo - whilst you have your fingers firmly in your 
ears and seem to be shouting "La La La La - I can't hear anything you 
say". You don't like the idea that most disagree with you and your 
response is to be patronising, petulant and abusive.

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