[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[skutvik at online.no]

Arlo 

12 May:

[Bo]
> Their strife with Plato was the budding intellectual level's 
> subjectivism's versus its objectivism that still haunts 
> intellect  ...in its SOM capacity role!!!!!
 
[Arlo]
> So you think the conflict of ZMM was between subjectivism and 
> objectivism, even if Pirsig has said quite clearly that what the
> Sophists were teaching was NOT subjectivism? How much do you have to
> rewrite in order to make your SOL palatable, Bo?

That ZAMM needs to be revised to some extent to fit the MOQ is plain,  
why Pirsig refrained from doing this harmonization ?? Perhaps 
because it demands the SOL interpretation and thus became 
anathema. For each revision of the intellectual level (from the "equal to 
mind" definition) it has come closer and closer to the SOL, but to take 
the final step ..no, that's too much! 

I got no sensible answer from DMB what the Aretê-SOM transition 
spells in moqish except something feeble about dynamics being 
overwhelmed by "statics"  but its plain that no era was particularly 
dynamic ... except the level shift ... and in this case it has to be intellect 
breaking off from its social bonds. Let me hear your explanation.  

What I meant by referring to Owen Barfield was: What we know as the 
social heyday (when the 3rd. level was leading edge) looks like a 
paradise lost compared to intellect's bleak, objective, approach that 
deprived existence of all meaning and quality, so no wonder that Pirsig 
in ZAMM also made the same - I won't call it mistake - yet what 
becomes a anomaly in the MOQ. And that must be put right.    

[Bo]
> Intellect was not infested with SOM, rather the S/O value fossilizes
> into a S/O METAPHYSICS !!!

[Arlo]
> See... its these type of utterly ridiculous statements, necessary to
> support your SOL, that make it a failure. What else could an "S/O
> value" fossilize into except an "S/O metaphysics"? Happily, Pirsig and
> others have seen that the "S/O value" is merely one species of
> "intellect".

As in Asia (where the Upanishad philosophic, i.e -  S/O - era was 
transcended fairly quickly by the  Quality-like Buddhism which regards 
subjects and objects - mind and matter - as subordinated a greater 
context.) in the same way the European S/O could have developed.  
However to transcend the rock hard SOM required a diamond hard 
and -bright system like the MOQ so in a MOQ hindsight (and a little 
wary) I'm glad things developed as they did.    

Bodvar