[MD] Intellectual Level

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mark]
Could you give me an example of an abstract symbol that has no 
corresponding particular experience?

[Arlo]
"Two". Or "two-ness" if you prefer.

[Mark]
Please do not quote Pirsig, provide me your own interpretation.

[Arlo]
You seem really hung-up on the term "interpretation". I am not quite 
sure why that is. With others it appears to be way of achieving 
legitimacy or authority in reluctance to forming disagreement.

[Mark]
I do not know where you are coming from, it doesn't seem coherent and 
Adrie would say.

[Arlo]
All you know is that I said I agree with Pirsig. And from that you 
conclude I lack coherence? Is that a criticism of Pirsig?

Like I keep saying to Marsha, if you feel Intellect=SOM is more 
coherent than Pirsig's Intellect!=SOM, could you explain why? Does it 
have more explanatory power? Does it provide a better analysis of evolution?

Pirsig's "goal" in the MOQ was to expand the nature of rationality, 
not to condemn it. Intellect=SOM condemns rationality ipso facto. Do 
you feel your Intellect=SOM points us towards a better solution than 
Pirsig was after?