[MD] Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Horse and Menagerie  
 
May 5  

You launched a barrage directed Mary's way, the essence of which is 
that you don't think the SOL interpretation of MOQ's 4th. level is 
correct. OK, what it all boils down to this. If intellect isn't the S/O 
distinction (the value of the objective-over-subjective approach) it must 
be Pirsig's latest definition (in the Paul Turner letter) which is current 
dogma ...no? 

Now, if - as I showed to Arlo to-day - LILA presents intellectual value 
as having come to dominate Social value in the Western culture and 
(in Pirsig's view) intellect looks upon social values as bigoted 
suppression of natural biological impulses and - reciprocally - society 
regards intellect as releasing biological forces it has taken (society) 
ages to tame. HOW can "manipulating of symbols" have achieved 
victory over social values, and - moreover - how can social level 
regard the same manipulation as a threat to ITS control over biological 
forces. 

Looking forward to your response.  

Bodvar


    

























> Hi Mary
> 
> On 02/05/2010 00:28, Mary wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Completely and utterly wrong. I have never said this or tried to imply it
> and neither have any of the others that you mention. We are using Pirsig
> as an authoritative figure (and not necessarily THE authoritative figure)
> with respect to what he wrote and how he sees the MoQ. Given the years
> that he spent formulating his idea and that he wrote 2 books and
> contributed to other works dealing with this idea he probably has a better
> handle on it than most. That's why I'm prepared to accept the majority of
> what he says as accurate with regard to his own work. There are some areas
> of the MoQ that I don't fully agree with and have said so, as has Arlo,
> Steve, Andre and others you mention, and there are other parts which we
> all regard as metaphorical - this is not fundamentalism, but it is common
> sense - which is something that may be lacking in Bo's, and as a
> consequence your, incorrect interpretation of Pirsig's MoQ.
> 
> > 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.
> >    
> 
> Or misinterpretation neither liberal or otherwise. The only 
> fundamentalism going on here is Bo's (and by argument and association
> yours and Marsha's) self-fundamentalist view that he's right and anyone
> who disagrees is wrong - including Pirsig!. Another phrase that comes to
> mind, with respect to this (mis-)interpretation, is bloody-minded. But why
> are you saying that Platt is not a fundamentalist? Platt is much more
> likely - and quite reasonably so - to request confirmation of an argument
> by reference to Pirsig's ideas than any one of the so-called
> "fundamentalists" you mention in your second paragraph. He also uses
> Pirsig quotes to support his own position as does Bo. Your mischievous use
> here of these terms is unhelpful and divisive - it's also incorrect!
> 
> > 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?
> >    
> 
> As thinking requires intellect (i.e. intelligence) and is part of the
> Intellectual level and, according to the MoQ, the Intellectual level
> evolved from the Social level it is a logical odds on certainty that there
> was no thinking prior to the Social level. There is also no social level
> thinking - only thinking as an intellectual activity/pattern and thus part
> of the intellectual level. How this relates to the social level varies
> depending upon context. Many on here confuse social level behaviour or
> activities with intellectual behaviour and activities. Perhaps this is a
> consequence of seeing both as subjective and thus the same - this is not
> how it is within the MoQ but something that the MoQ, as a higher Quality
> intellectual pattern, seeks to redress.
> 
> > [horse]
> > Unfortunately, it looks like you've got it wrong Platt because this says
> > nothing about "thinking" being a biological function. What he says is
> > that intellect (thinking) pre-dates science and philosophy. He also says
> > that inorganic and biological patterns are objects ("Objects are
> > inorganic and biological values") so how can thinking be an object as
> > you seem to believe? Can you poke it cook it or whatever else you might
> > do with a lump of material stuff?
> >
> > [Mary says]  This is a prime example of the Fundamentalist view.  Of
> > course thinking predates science and philosophy.  It was thinking that
> > came up with the Social, and that came from thinking that was going on
> > in the Biological.
> >    
> 
> Not as I and the majority here and Pirsig understand it and it has 
> nothing to do with fundamentalism. Pirsig is not saying that prior to 5th
> century BC Athenian civilisation (SOM) there was no intellectual level. He
> is saying that thinking is an intellectual activity and pre-dates SOM. If
> thinking came up with the social then explain how a social pattern such as
> a city, which must have inherited this ability, thinks. Pre-social humans
> didn't "come up with" social patterns by thinking, social patterns emerged
> from instinctive biological behaviour of grouping together for protection
> against other biological threats such as large animals with big teeth!
> 
> > [horse]
> > Pirsig says quite plainly that thinking's historical [replace
> > "historical" with "biological" and you'll have it right, Horse] purpose
> > was to "...help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat enemies."
> > and that it (Thinking/Intellect/Intelligence) is part of the
> > evolutionary process of the MoQ. That it was prior to intellectual
> > patterns breaking free from domination by social patterns does not mean
> > that it was not in itself a separate level prior to the emergence of
> > science and philosophy when it finally started to break free from the
> > domination of social patterns. ... This also undermines your and Bo's
> > idea that SOM is the Intellectual level (what you and Bo would see as
> > science and philosophy etc.) because it existed prior to these as is
> > pointed out in the above section of Lila - "....intellect has functions
> > that pre-date science and philosophy [SOM]". How obvious is that? So how
> > can SOM be the Intellectual level when intellect, intelligence, thinking
> > etc. all existed before these were around?????
> >
> > [mary]
> > Horse, of course thinking existed prior to SOM.
> 
> Good to hear we agree on something. However, in your aside within the
> above section from my previous post you are putting words into Pirsigs
> mouth which he didn't intend and would be unlikely to endorse. Here's the
> quote again without additions:
> 
> "Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that 
> intellect has functions that predate science and philosophy. The 
> intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an ultimate
> meaning of the universe. That is a relatively recent fad. Its historical
> purpose has been to help a society find food, detect danger, and defeat
> enemies. It can do this well or poorly, depending on the concepts it
> invents for this purpose." Lila Chapter 24
> 
> To change 'historical' to 'biological', as per your aside,  
> misinterprets what he is referring to in the sentence. You could replace
> the 'It's' with 'intellect's' (or 'thinking's') as this is what it
> lexically refers to but to replace 'historical' with 'biological' is a
> form of question begging in order to support an untenable position.Here's
> the above quote again with correct lexical alterations:
> 
> "Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that 
> intellect has functions that pre-date science and philosophy. The 
> intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an ultimate
> meaning of the universe. That is a relatively recent fad.
> [Intellect's/Thinkings] historical purpose has been to help a society find
> food, detect danger, and defeat enemies. [Intellect/Thinking] can do this
> well or poorly, depending on the concepts [Intellect/Thinking] invents for
> this purpose." Lila Chapter 24
> 
> 
> > It existed to ever lesser degrees in all preceding levels down to the
> > Biological.
> 
> Back to disagreeing again as intellect/thinking did not pre-date biology.
> 
> > I get your point. You seem to be saying that the Intellectual Level
> > arose as a separate Static Pattern of Values prior to the emergence of
> > SOM.
> 
> Yep, and it's not just me. The intellectual level emerged from the 
> social level at a much earlier stage than SOM which emerged around 
> 500BC. This is in accordance with the MoQ's description of evolutionary
> development of static patterns of Value.
> 
> > I take issue with this.
> > Have we all not memorized by now the paragraphs where Pirsig
> > passionately explains how Socrates was the founder of the Intellectual
> > Level?
> 
> No. I've just searched the electronic editions of ZMM, Lila and the 
> Lila's Child annotations and I can't see any mention of this. Bo might
> have said it at some point but I'm pretty certain that Pirsig wouldn't
> have said it and didn't say it. Can you point me to the quote? Or is this
> another misrepresentation/mis-interpretation of what Pirsig has said? BTW,
> as you're using what Pirsig has said to support your position have you now
> become a fundamentalist?
> 
> > Do we not all agree that by definition each level differs from the
> > others by virtue of what it values?
> >    
> 
> Probably not. I thought that each level was created by Value (or 
> patterns of value if you want) not something that is doing the valuing.
> Patterns within a level will be valuing. I can see what you might be
> getting at, although I think there is a big difference.
> 
> > [Horse]
> > Are you saying that prior to around 500BC there were no intellectual
> > patterns of value? Because _that_ is really what would really be going
> > off the deep end. [Well, Horse, I guess Pirsig "went off the deep end",
> > then]
> 
> Not at that particular time - I thought that was an earlier period in his
> life.
> 
> > Intellectual patterns of value constitute the intellectual level, so
> > either you are saying that there were no intellectual patterns of value
> > prior to this time and no intellectual level or you have to admit that
> > there were and that the intellectual level was very much in existence.
> > [Nope.  Pirsig is unequivocal about this point - though he is not so
> > unequivocal about others].
> >    
> 
> Which point are you saying Pirsig was unequivocal about? That there were
> no Intellectual patterns of value and as a consequence no intellectual
> level before 500BC or that there were intellectual patterns and
> consequently a viable intellectual level?
> 
> > [mary]
> > Yes. That is exactly what the liberal interpretation is saying, Horse,
> > and if needed, we can all refer back to Pirsig's discussion of this as
> > it relates to Socrates creation of the Intellectual Level "breaking
> > free" from the Social.
> >    
> 
> I believe that what you are referring to (5th century BC Athens?) was the
> starting point of this process (not the end point) and I also do not
> believe that Socrates made this point or that Pirsig says that he did. At
> least not anywhere that I can see so far. But just to clarify, are you
> saying that what we are calling SOM created the Intellectual level as this
> seems to be what you are implying.
> 
> >
> > Again I see parallels with Christian Fundamentalist vs. Christian
> > Liberal bickering.
> >
> > A literal interpretation of Pirsig will get us nowhere, because Pirsig,
> > whether by design or not left the door wide open in many of these areas.
> >  It is easier to interpret the Bible in many instances than it is to
> > interpret our dear Mr. Pirsig.
> >    
> 
> I don't think so. I think it's quite easy to misinterpret what Pirsig says
> if you start off with an incorrect assumption - i.e. SOL! Cross
> referencing much of what Pirsig says in Lila, LC etc. more often than not
> clears up most apparent inconsistencies. Taking quotes and paragraphs out
> of context is often what causes confusion - question begging is another
> source of confusion. Both of these activities are prevalent (and
> necessary) in defence of Bo's ideas.
> 
> > I could once again paste in Pirsig's quotes on the subject of Platt and
> > Bo's SOM interpretation, but surely we've all read them a million times
> > by now and this post is too long as it is.
> >
> > If you read the Annotations [132? Et al] again, you will see just how
> > carefully Pirsig has worded his statements.
> 
> > He is not saying that Platt and Bo are wrong.
> 
> Yes he is.
> Annotation 129. I've always thought this is incorrect because many forms
> of intellect do not have a subject-object construction.
> 
> Incorrect means wrong. So he's saying that Platt and Bo are wrong! Also,
> other comments are far more serious than that they are merely wrong as he
> says, quite unequivocally, that their position undermines the MoQ. Wrong
> is far too mild.
> 
> Annotation 133. I think this conclusion undermines the MOQ........
> 
> 
> > It would have been easy and simple for him to do so.
> 
> And he did. I think you're confusing this with Pirsig being diplomatic
> 
> > Instead he cautions that the SOM interpretation could be confusing to
> > some and should thus be avoided.  Boy was he right.
> >    
> 
> I think he goes a lot further than merely saying Bo's idea is wrong.
> Annotation 133. ...It's just that I see a lowering of the quality of the
> MOQ itself if you follow this path of subordinating it to that [SOM] which
> it opposes. Yeah, Pirsig was right - but maybe he should have been less
> diplomatic.
> 
> > I have asked these questions so many times without getting any answers
> > that I hesitate to ask them again, but this is the crux of the matter.
> 
> My sincere apologies for not corresponding with you sooner Mary - 
> entirely my fault in allowing myself to get sidetracked on other threads
> and domestic and artistic activities and I hope this post goes some way to
> amending my lack of communication with you. Definitely not my intention
> and I shall try not to let these things slip in future.
> 
> > If you are going to say that the Intellectual Level is more than "just
> > SOM", I need ONE example.
> >    
> 
> The Metaphysics of Quality - and this is endorsed by the guy that 
> formulated it.
> 
> > Bullying, insults, profanity and bluster is not what I expect.
> >    
> 
> Perhaps but, unfortunately, I expect insults, a patronising attitude,
> bloody-mindedness and unsubstantiated waffle from the originator of the
> position which you currently hold. It is rarely my intention to be rude
> but if someone is rude to me then I am quite likely to respond in kind.
> Especially if the offence is frequently repeated (to myself and others)
> when I have made attempts to be reasonable.
> 
> 
> > Thank you,
> > Mary
> >    
> My pleasure
> 
> Horse
> 
> 



































On 5 May 2010 at 5:37, Andre Broersen wrote:

> Bodvar to Andre:
> 
> No doubt the Quality Idea arrived intuitively, but my point is that he
> couldn't go down to the town square climb a soap box and tell people
> he had had a vision. He lived in a society totally SOM-steeped and if
> his idea would make it, it had to follow the rules of that society.
> "When in Rome ... etc"
> 
> Andre:
> Well, he wrote two books on it.
> 
> Bodvar:
> Well, you seem to see the point. However, the MOQ must not be
> assimilated by acadmical philosophy...
> 
> Andre:
> Not sure what you are getting at here. ZMM on the reading list of many
> philosophy courses is a good start isn't it? And the 'assimilated'
> bit, well, with all respect, if you keep insisting on your SOL/SOM
> interpretation/designation of the intellectual level then you do not
> give many enthusiastic students much hope. You are suggesting they
> operate from within the SOL/SOM prison and there is no way they can
> get out. They'd get thoroughly confused and probable will give up.
> 
> New ideas take time to be accepted and I would think that the more
> people that get exposed and talk about these ideas the better,
> especially the MOQ. And, of course some people will misrepresent it,
> misunderstand it, (ab)use it for their own justifications of their own
> little agenda's. You can't avoid this. But some will appreciate the
> full implications of the MOQ and ride with it, share it and spread it.
> 
> Bodvar:
> You may be a pain in several places Andre, but as long as you speak
> MOQ-speak you are magnanimously forgiven.
> 
> Andre:
> Well, thank you great Master. I am sure that if I ask Mr. Pirsig how
> to go about reaching a  true understanding of the MOQ he would say:
> 'Go do the dishes'.
> 
> 
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
> 
>