[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Craig and Arlo

3 May:

[Craig]
> I would say the one example is the MoQ. 1) The MoQ is/is- part- of the
> Intellectual Level 2) The MoQ isn't/isn't-part-of the SOM 3) :. SOM
> isn't the Intellectual Level. 

Bodvar: 
At the time P of ZAMM struggled to get his teacher colleagues to 
understand the Quality Idea it certainly was an intellectual pattern in 
SOM's  "intellect=the realm of ideas" sense, he went most objectively 
about the job, but from the moment of the full-fledged MOQ - when 
"intellect"  became a subset of its a subset of the MOQ - it's impossible 
for the MOQ to be contained therein without violating logic   .... unless 
it returns to its status as SOM's mind (realms of ideas) something I 
suspect it has for you.     

[Arlo]
> Yeah. I think a source of confusion here is to think that because
> intellectual patterns are built with symbols, and symbols are
> predominantly linguistic, and language makes us of "subject" and
> "object" grammatically, then one misconstrues all that as SOM. 

No Arlo I can assure you that this is not behind the SOL (Intellect = 
S/O) interpretation. It will carry it too far to go through it all, but you 
know how ZAMM describes the emergence of SOM, that Socrates is 
its midwife. In that book Pirsig says that Socrates represented 
INTELLECT'S LIBERATION FROM ITS SOCIAL ORIGIN. Ergo he 
saw SOM = intellect. That is just one indication. Lila contains many 
more. 

> But language also makes use of verbs and time. It would be as easy to
> characterize intellect as Motion-Time Metaphysics, that being the
> case. 

???????????

> In any case, the distinction is that SOM is a unique subset of
> intellectual patterns that begins with the premise that a
> "subject-object" divide is the PRIMARY metaphysical split, and then
> any subsequent "reasoning" from that premise we'd label "SOM". 

Is this a convoluted affirmation of the SOL or is it a rejection??? 
Anyway all intellectual patterns are based on the premises that the S/O 
schism is reality's fundament. 

> This is precisely what led Pirsig to ask: Now that intellect was in
> command of society for the first time in history, was this the
> intellectual pattern it was going to run society with? (LILA) 

Right, how can the 4th. level have managed to rise on top of the 3rd. 
and - as is a MOQ tenet - regard society as "evil" in any other capacity 
than SOM? The "attitude" that by objective reasoning showed that 
social morals were merely subjective mind-patterns, not having root in 
reality?           . 

Bodvar