[MD] Valuing Bodvar's SIM (BSIM)

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi Andy

14 July :

Bo to Andy:
> > IMO the MOQ IS the strong interpretation, the weak one is lame, tame
> > and good for nothing.. And all is about the intellectual level: The
> > "weak interpretation" (WIM) says it corresponds to the mental
> > compartment (that SOM calls) "mind",  while the "strong
> > interpretation" (SIM) says it corresponds to the former SOM (i.e SOM
> > stripped of the "M") so you will see that the WIM postulates a
> > smooth transition from SOM - an expansion of rationality - while the
> > SIM postulates a total break with SOM - and expansion of reality.

> I am trying to understand I and believe you possess clear thoughts but
> frankly I find your writing style to be nearly impenetrable. So please
> be patient and answer my questions so that I can know the elephant
> you're riding.

All right, my English may limp, but I have noticed that when I try to 
convey the MOQ even in my native language (I've written a few 
"reader's letters" to newspapers) the same reaction of impenetrability 
occurs. . 

> > Simply said the SOL says that the subject/object metaphysics is
> > MOQ´s intellectual level. This in contrast to the standard
> > interpretation of SOM as one among countless intellectual patterns.

> So this is your dichotomy:

Yes, but dichotomy? At least it is my assertion.   

> WIM (SOM): Level 4 includes the subject/object distinction
> SIM (SOL): Level 4 is precisely the subject/object distinction

Right, spot on!

> I am trying to understand what problem this solves. I'm confused by
> the history back to SOLAQI and what went before. Do I need to finish
> Lila and LC before this is possible? Can anyone else jump in and
> explain it in clearer English than Bo's?

Mati answered your call, he wrote:

    One of the major riffs has been that Bo's interpretation of 
    Pirsig's intellect is that it "is" SOM in it's static form, no more no 
    less. Other people have suggested that whoa, hold the horses 
    there are all kinds of thought patterns out there and that seem 
    to be part of the intellect therefore Bo is wrong. There are 
    thought patterns related to math, computer language, and a 
    host of other things that seem to lend themselves to what we 
    could postulate as intellect. What Bo points out is that SOM 
    creates a distortion of understanding reality, something Pirsig 
    seems to really tease out in ZMM.  One of the distortions is 
    that these thought patterns related to how we view ourselves 
    via SOM. It is a nasty game of chasing your tail, but from my 
    very humble perspective SOL or now SIM, stop us from doing 
    that.  

Mati's got it right, just a little addendum: The "thought pattern"  is 
crucial in the sense that it is SOM that has made "intellect" mean 
all/any thought pattern. This is wrong, "intellect" means RATIONALITY 
but its hopeless to snap the MD participants out of this fallacy. 
Anyway, the MOQ rejects the S/O distinction as reality's fundament 
(along with it all its offsprings included the mind/matte one) and now 
we see what the MOQ is up against: Wen people believe they speak 
about  MOQ's 4th. level they really speak about  SOM's "mind", and 
with this unholy mix between SOM and MOQ it's always MOQ that 
suffers. You will see that the "weak interpreters" just have to utter the 
world "intellect" and the whole SOM cavalry comes thundering to back 
them up "... ah, of course intellect means what goes in minds, no 
problem!" while us poor "strong interpreters" have to fight for each inch 
of ground.  If  you Andy only would understand this single point you 
have understood what's at stake. INTELLECT IS NOT MIND BUT (IN 
THIS CASE) THE MIND/MATTER DISTINCTION!   

Enough for now. This secured we can proceed to the problem solving 
part.


Bodvar