[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Andre, Platt, Horse, All.

Platt to Horse:
> No doubt in some instances Pirsig considers" thought" to be the
> intellectual level. But, in other instances he considers the intellectual
> level to be the subject-object understanding. There's the rub.

True!

Andre:
> With all due respect to you both I, once again, jump in here to be
> corrected if I am wrong, what is the rub Platt?

Platt again:
> What I don't  comprehend (and what you may be able to clarify for me) is
> how the MOQ as a static intellectual pattern can include itself in its own
> intellectual level, i.e., the problem of a smaller container trying to
> contain a larger one.

Capital TRUE!!
 
Andre:
> I do not follow the container dilemma. Only, and only if, as you and
> Bodvar argue, you see the MOQ=Reality con-fusion the problem exists. Your
> question indicates the platypus it creates...but it is a paradox only with
> regards to your definition of the intellectual level. The MOQ is NOT
> reality. It is a static, intellectual representation of it.

One can get too smart-ass. About the MOQ as a (subjective) 
representation of reality" in contrast to "the MOQ as (objective) reality" 
reflects SOM and I recommend ZAMM's Newton parable. His theory 
created the Gravity Reality and the MOQ will create the Quality Reality 
.. when it's rid of its crypto--SOMists ;-) Regrettable Pirsig's 
Quality/MOQ meta-metaphysics also reflects SOM.

> Pirsig has stated so often that when being confronted with theoretical
> dilemmas you need to go back to the assumptions underlying the
> theories...and critically look at those and invariably you find that there
> is something not right about the assumptions upon which the theory is
> based.Especially if it does not adequately reflects empirical
> experience.Hence the theory needs to be changed.

Total agreement, check your SOM assumptions, they are 
conspicuous.

> Back to the analogy of the dictionary...look up the word 'dictionary'...
> does the word 'contain' the dictionary........? Is there a container
> problem here? Come on Platt.

Yes, in the a sense. The word "dictionary" contains all such books. 
Language's phenomenal force is that of compressing all wide-spread 
phenomena into relatively few "symbol that can be manipulated by 
rules of grammar and syntax" (logic) and may yield new contexts when 
fed into our biological intelligence. Much like mathematical equations 
can yield new physical realities (particles) before any experiment has 
affirmed them.   

Bodvar



























On 2 May 2010 at 18:31, moq_discuss at moqtalk.org wrote:

> Mary, All.
> 
> > Hello Bo, Marsha, Platt, DMB, Horse, Andre, Steve, ...
> 
> > I've only now caught up with all the posts made in this thread in
> > the past week.  They are equivalent to the arguments you can hear
> > between Christian Fundamentalists and their counterparts.  I Googled
> > for "opposite of fundamentalist" to find an appropriate word and
> > only came up with something like "liberal Christian".  
> 
> > On one side are arrayed the forces of DMB, Horse, Andre, Steve and
> > others who are the equivalent of MoQ Fundamentalists.  Every word of
> > Pirsig's writings are to be taken as literally true, without
> > metaphor or interpretation.  The MoQ Earth was created in 7 24-hour
> > days, and on the last day was created the Intellectual Level where
> > all thinking resides.  On the other side are arrayed the forces of
> > Bo, Marsha, myself, and Platt, who take a more, dare I say, liberal
> > interpretation.
> 
> > Horse says there was no thinking prior to the Social Level, and
> > quotes Pirsig to prove it.  Since each level emerges in an
> > evolutionary manner from the one below, I would like to know where
> > the Social level came from if there was no thinking to think it up
> > in the Biological?
> 
> It would deplete my reserve of positive adjectives (superlatives) to
> comment each paragraph of this message, but it was wonderful. The
> fundamentalists can't use the same tactics against you as against this
> guy - of not mastering English, of being harder-than-diamond-headed
> and/or simply talk about something else ... this far at least ... I
> wish however that you would post more regularly, but I know you have
> other things to do.  
> 
> Bodvar 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>