On 24 Feb 2002, at 9:07, 3dwavedave wrote:
> Bo
> OK, based of your emphatic "YES'S" is sounds like to have correctly
> stated your position with reguard to SOL and the intellectural level.
> Now if you would help me with a few other points maybe I'll understand
> the unswerving defence of your SOLAQI theory in the face of so little
> support here or in Pirsig's work.
(Me from before)
> > The inorganic-biological levels as "objects" and social-intellectual
> > as "subjects" is a way to subsume SOM under QM's rule and it works, but has its
> > weakness...
(3WD again)
> Focusing just on the intellectual level;
It's not easy to focus just on intellect ...when the whole q-range is
in question, but I'll try ...under a new heading!
> 1. What are these weakness?
Saying that the intellectual level belongs to the subjective half
makes the Quality idea itself "subjective", and for a system that
proposes to oust the SOM? Struan Hellier's claim was just that
and is kind of justified. Now, to do Pirsig justice, he naturally
means that once SOM is subsumed by the MOQ it becomes a
lower-case s/o and that neither object nor subject assume the
former metaphysical greatness. But still ....
> And how does your theory correct them?
By making the intellectual level the subject/object divide itself.
> 2. What are benefits of this interpretation?
Firstly that it removes the said quandary, but more than anything
else the S/O is kept as a value, for who can dream of rejecting that
"capability" which would mean stone age, and how can that be
preserved with SOM a "bad idea" somewhere lower down in the
intellectual realm. However - and that is important - its
metaphysical aspect, the notion that S/O is the ultimate divide,
must go, and that is done by seeing Quality Metaphysics as a
"rebel" intellectual pattern. And another thing (please spend a few
seconds pondering it) what if there comes a "better idea" along?
Will THAT be another q-intellect pattern if the new idea rejects the
Q-idea wholesalely! No, the q-intellect is a closed case and the Q-
idea is something out-of-intellect.
> 3. What are the pitfalls?
Of my SOLAQI? By making the Q-idea a moral level above q-
intellect it makes it immune to s/o based arguments, but it raises
solipsism accusations. Valid to a degree and I am writing on
something for Angus who was the one that pointed it out.
> 4. In the balance is this then the best solution?
In my opinion yes, but let me add that Pirsig's own way of tucking
the S/O in under the MOQ (inorganic + organic=objective, social +
intellectual=subjective) works well to a point. I have compared
these two with the weak and strong interpretations of Quantum
Physics (weak/strong noting to do with bad/good, but more about
this in the said reply to Angus).
I have a hunch that you a few days ago refuted my claim (that your
q-intellect sounds like SOM's mind) on the grounds that there is no
mind/matter divide. I would like to see you repeat Struan's exercise
in describe things without it, because it's impossible. The S/O
(mind/matter) divide has come to stay, but after Pirsig it is stripped
of its "M" and remains QM's intellectual level. Then - only by
seeing the Q-idea itself as something taking the metaphysical
relay pin beyond intellect - everything is completed.
IMO.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:54 BST