Hi Platt
(I take the liberty to split up the two parts of your message, this one I put in
the "food for thought" thread, while the other will be kept under the "article
reflecting" heading. )
On 4 Sep you wrote:
> This seems to be my day for misinterpreting what others say. (I know
> some would say that's every day.)
Relax, I have Wim banging me over the head right now for the same sin :-)
> In my defense: on 29 Aug you wrote:
> > "The relationship between the MOQ and intellect can be discussed. It
> > may be seen in all kinds of positions, at least it is at intellect's
> > 'upper' fringe from where it is able to 'see' intellect as a static
> > level."
> You have argued, rightly, that SOM dominates intellect's static level.
Each time I claim that the Quality Idea is a separate level I get Wavedave on
my heels and then I have to call it a "unruly intellectual pattern" to appease
him :-). Whatever it is at some position able to look down on intellect .....not
as a map, but as the map/terrain divide itself. IMO.
> You have also agreed that the MOQ, like Pirsig says of metaphysics, is
> a "menu" and a 'map'
Er .. (see later)
(recall the Mercator analogy). So I put 2 and 2
> together and obviously came up up with 5. Perhaps you'll elucidate on
> where I've gone wrong.
Yes, but Pirsig says "projection" and I believe (hope) it makes a difference?
"Mercator" is one way of doing the impossible (projecting a sphere's surface
on to a flat sheet) the "Polar" another and if Pirsig had he said that the MOQ
is a "Globe Projection" he would have been right, but then he goes on to
speak about menus and food ....phew. No, you haven't gone wrong, it's me
who deviates at this point. I also admit that Pirsig says that both SOM and
MOQ are intellectual patterns. I don't claim that any LILA text underpins my
notion (that Intellect is SOM and SOM alone) but the Q.idea conveys that
impression ...on me, can't help it.
> Boy, have I been mistaken. All along I thought you identified the
> intellectual level as SOLAQI (Subject/Object Logic as Quality
> Intellect).
I don't know if it's a catch here, but the SOLAQI idea suggests that the
intellectual level is the VALUE of the subject/object-divided. Thus, as top
notch, it dominated existence to the degree of making us believe that this
was REALITY ITSELF (a metaphysics) with the arrival of the MOQ it is seen
a s a mere static level.
> And all along I thought Pirsig argued that SOLAQI was
> ill-equipped to control society since it denies values. Where have
> gone wrong on this?
Hmm. Pirsig don't argue for or against the SOLAQI because it is not part of
his reasoning, but forgive me for again trying to convey my reasoning:
Pirsig rightly says that the SOM is ill-equipped to explain existence because
it denies values (by relegating them to the subjective realm), but along
comes the MOQ and re-relegates the S/O (stripped of the 'M') to the position
of its own intellectual level. And as such it is the only "force" that can control
society because the value of separating what's objective from what's
subjective checks social conformity the best.
Hope things became a bit more clear.
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 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:30 BST