[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[John Carl]

Marsha and Bo,

Ron defined SOM as identical with Objectivism.  And Intellect is
objectification.  So there is a sense in which the intellectual level is
identical with SOM.

However, Bo's problem stems from a problem with Pirsig naming the 4th level
after "intellect".  It is my assertion that a better term for the 4th is the
Philosophical level.  And I believe there are philosophies which transcend
intellectualism or objectivism.  The MoQ being one of them.  But there are
many hints and nuances of "perennialism" in Pirsig's writings to join the
MoQ as a non-objectivist cosmology that I find this whole shtick of Bo's
assigning the 4th level as SOM - value free metaphysics, almost as annoying
as him relegating all mysticisms to social level religious "lower" status.


Marsha, when you say:

 If one accepts the MoQ,

> then Reality has gone from being subjects and objects -to- Reality being
> Quality(Dynamic/static,) from a metaphysics based on subjects/objects
> to a metaphysics based quality, from a dualism to a monism, from SOM
> to MoQ.
>
>
>
I want to make one point is that according to the MoQ, "Reality" is just as
undefinable as Quality, eh?  So don't make an ambiguous assumption on the
meaning of reality in that SOM definition and equate it with what the MoQ is
saying about Reality.

I think of the MoQ as the ultimate process philosophy, because it makes the
process of discovering what is good, infinitely malleable to the
circumstance.  In a way, the MoQ isn't simply a metaphysics, it's an
approach on how to do metaphysics.  Even as James says about pragmatism
being a way to do philosophy.  You could say that the MoQ is a
"Meta-Pragmatism".

But doesn't quite sound hallmarky enough for me.


 Marsha:

I agree with you that there is a difference between Intellectual static
> patterns of value and intelligence.  I understand 'intelligence' as the
> skillful use of whatever patterns (organic, biological, social &
> intellectual) a given situation requires, or possibly to use no patterns
> if nothing is required.
>
>
Intelligence has a lot to do with learning ability and Intellect the
analytic slicing ability.  I was thinking of them the other day as a sort of
DQ/sq aspects of our mentation, with intelligence the dynamic aspect and
intellect the static aspect.





> For me the important realization was the nature of patterns.   And the MoQ
> became less confusing when I realized the Intellectual Level was, most
> certainly, a subject-object level.   This second realization was not a
> result
> of your arguments directly.  It struck me like a 2x4 in the middle of
> disagreeing
> with you. But you were correct!  The fourth level is a formalized
> subject/object
> level.
>
>
> Marsha
>


Well, I agree intellectual can only mean formalized s/o, as you say.  I just
disagree that the 4th level is intellectual.  I guess I'd have to appeal to
a higher authority on that.

Is there such a thing as "higher authority"?


John