[MD] Hot stoves and those who sit on them

[MarshaV]

John,


On Mar 30, 2010, at 3:40 PM, John Carl wrote:

> 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.  

Sure the static conceptual aspect of the MoQ.   


> 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.

I don't agree with everything Bo says.



> 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?  

Yes.  Reality=Quality, and from my experience Quality is unpatterned experience
and patterned experience.  
    
 
 
> 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'm not clearly understanding your complaint???     
 
 
 
> 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.

I will not talk of intellect, but prefer to talk of intellectual static patterns of
value.  Intelligence as a 'skillful use' certainly could be learning, or accumulating 
additional static patterns of value.


>> 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.


> 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"?



Statically I assume there may be many:  James, Rorty, Dewey, Royce, Pierce, 
Aristotle, Plato, Joseph Campbell, Wikepedia, etc., etc., etc.,,,,    Take your pick.  
Did I miss anyone?
 
 
Marsha  



 
___