[MD] A larger system of understanding

[plattholden at gmail.com]

On 10 Jul 2010 at 15:34, X Acto wrote:

> > Platt:
> > Not sure what you have in mind, but if you mean that value transcends SOM 
> > intellect I agree. 
> > 
> > Ron:
> > This is where the interpretive factor gets kinda sticky. If one takes the 
>tack 
>
> 
> > of
> > SOM= the intellectual level, then no. Because it can't. It contradicts it's 
>own 
>
> >
> > assertion.
> > SOM is the highest static good and the four levels is all there is. If one 
> does
> > take that value transcends the intellectual level then all sorts of twisted
> > rationalized arguements arise to support this assertion. It becomes 
> > indestinguishable
> > from religous rationalized arguements. It becomes a destroyer of the 
> > intellectual level.
> > It seeks to kill all intellectual patterns. The highest good mind you per 
>SOL.
> > The intellect commits suicide looking to transcend to some rationalized 
state
> > thats is indefinable. Sounds like a religion.
> 
> [Platt]
> 
> Well then you're going to have to deal intellectually with DQ which is 
> indefinable. Does acknowledging the existence of that creative force destroy  
> intellectual patterns? Does Pirsig rely on some religious-type miracle to round 
>
> out his metaphysics? 
> 
> What say you?
> 
>   
> Ron:
> SOL seems to answer "yes".

[Platt]
You say otherwise?

Ron:
I believe Pirsig says otherwise.

[Platt]
What do you think Pirsig means by "divine" in the following quote?:

"Finally, though it may be argued that a metaphysics that incorporates a 
central term that isn't defined (i.e. Dynamic Quality) isn't a real 
metaphysics, it can also be argued that the strength of the MOQ is its ability 
to incorporate the indeterminate divine within a coherent and logical 
paradigm." (Ltr to McWatt)

My dictionary defines "divine" as: "of, like, or from a god."