Bo:
DMB says:
Your SOLAQI artificially narrows the intellectual level and thereby creates
problems. It excludes things that we know to exist. It leaves homeless
things that can't fit at any other level, such as symbolic logic and the MOQ
itself. More importantly perhaps, SOLAQI solves no problems. Your objections
to Pirsig's answer don't work either. Since all intellectual patterns are
necessarily derived from social patterns, your objection is moot. That's it.
Pirsig's comment in its entirity:
This seems too restrictive. It seems to exclude non-subject-object
constructions such as symbolic logic, higher mathematics, and computer
languages from the intellectual level and give them no home. Also the term
"quality" as used in the MOQ would be excluded from the intellectual level.
In fact, the MOQ, which gives intellectual meaning to the term quality,
would also have to be excluded from the intellectual level. If we just say
the intellect is the manipulation of language-derived symbols for experience
these problems of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur.
Bo's objection:
This is the start of my SOLAQI "obsession" and Pirsig's comment is
important, particularly the last lines that you extracted. About the first
part - if I am allowed to comment Pirsig's comment - I would say that
"symbolic logic" is language (manipulation of symbols according to the
rules of logic) the same goes for mathematics (algebra) where the logic
isn't grammatical, but nevertheless the same game. Even more so re.
computer language. So, IMO, where ordinary language belongs in the
MOQ sequence is where all special languages belong, and I believe we
have come to the conclusion that language is the ultimate social pattern
that came to be the vehicle of intellect (like carbon was for life)....but
then Pirsig's
> If we just say the intellect is the manipulation of language-derived
symbols for
> experience these problems of excessive exclusion do not seem to occur.
This may be it! Yes, dammit! Look. In its social role the symbol aspect
of language wasn't "discovered". For instance, the name was intimately
connected with the animal and if chanted - or painted (sign language)
on the walls of the cave - it would bring it to their pits. Tens of
thousands of years later the divide between the word (the symbol) and
the actual thing became accentuated. This is what Pirsig calls "the
increasing power of abstraction" in ZAMM which lead to the Greek
thinkera and - eventually - SOM.
The only thing is that this confirms my SOLAQI. The development
described in ZAMM as SOM can as well be seen as Intellectl. I don't
know why it is so terribly important to disprove me, this is an obvious
conclusion ...maybe the very reason. (sigh!).
Erin ctd:
> There is something that I always get confused on- this eastern/western
> bridge that Pirsig creates. To me SOM was descriptive of the
> object-oriented type thinking and MOQ was descriptive of a
> process-oriented thinking. I also thought this reflected the object
> (west) vs verb(east) languages. It also reflects what Bo said:
>"It's like saying that God is one and have been given different names.
>That may go for the Semitic variants, but clearly not for Buddhism
>and other Eastern religions".
Thanks for noticing my words.
> I get confused because I can't tell whether people are arguing whether
> MOQ is the bridge between east and west OR MOQ is a description of
> the east for those raised in the west.
Exactly, the SOM is object-oriented (that there must be a subject goes
without saying). The MOQ ..process-oriented? Well, what's for sure is
that it is non-object/subject-orientated. I have called it a bridge, a
bridge-head, a scout party and other fancy names, but does it really
matter? It unites both world views.
> Are SOM and MOQ both
> intellectual patterns. If so what exactly is the bridge between the
> two--the intellectual level?
Valid questions and something that was discussion at great lengths
once ... so much that most gave it up and turned to the safe ground of
the Middle East conflict and the American liberal vs conservative
politics :-) Firstly, to say that both are intellectual patterns makes Q-
intellect identical to SOM's "mind"; everything is mental constructs,
theories, maps (with the inevitable "just" in front), you know the
argumentation, and what the MOQ was supposed to be a relief from
comes rushing to the fore again.
A solution is to call SOM a low intellectual level and the MOQ a high
one, but are there any such examples at the other levels. Is a tribe a
low social pattern and a modern state a high one? IMO no, the former is
a purer social pattern while the latter is heavily overlaid with
intellectual
value. In that sense SOM is the basic intellectual value, while the MOQ
is an intellectual pattern heavily overlaid with the values of a higher
level ... exactly what my SOLAQI idea says.
> If ZAMM and LILA help bridge the gap for
> westerners do they have the same effect on easterners? Is there
> different works that create a bridge for them- sort of explaining God
> to a Buddhist I guess.
The best question of them all. In the beginning I visualized scores of
Estern sages reporting to this discussion, but alas no one has - no
"sages" at least - they seem to be as lost as us Westerners ...or busy
catering for Richard Gere, Leonard Cohen and other pop/film stars :-).
Thanks again Erin, you seem to see ...something.
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
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 - 16:02:16 BST