From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jun 15 2005 - 20:22:09 BST
Anthony and Group.
On 12 June Ant McWatt wrote:
> As I mentioned to you before, I might work the following notes into a
> review of your SOL essay but, in the meantime, I’ve pasted them (in
> two posts) between some of the relevant paragraphs of your essay.
Good,
> Primarily, if you retain SOL, I think you have to explain where the
> MOQ (which is an intellectual map of reality)
MOQ an intellectual map? By this criterion isn't about everything
said and written about the world's workings "intellectual maps"?
The Bible, the Koran, the cavedweller's mythologies (who
definitely were from before intellect). This is sort of a repetition of
the Paul letter where Pirsig went farther down into the biological
level. This is the blind alley that the intelligence-intellect (I call it)
leads to.
> metaphysically fits
> within itself. It seems to me there is no space for the MOQ if SOL is employed.
This problem of trying to describe value in terms of substance has been
the problem of a smaller container trying to contain a larger one. Value
is not a subspecies of substance. Substance is a subspecies of value.
When you reverse the containment process and define substance in terms of
value the mystery disappears: substance is a "stable pattern of inorganic
values." The problem then disappears. The world of objects and the world
of values is unified. (LILA ch.8)
This quote makes two point, first that of the container logic. The
MOQ is not a subspecies of intellect, Intellect is a subspecies of
MOQ. Next that of the levels NOT being exact equivalents of any
SOM counterparts. Re. inorganic value he is explicit, but many
problems could have been avoided had he said the same about
intellect, but as it is we are stuck with SOM's "thoughts or ideas".
Regarding MOQ's place within itself I commented it in my reply to
Matt, but I may add that that the MOQ is intellectual in the sense
that it is "out of intellect", i.e: it used SOMish arguments to take
over (the "M"), but from then on it left the residual S/O as its own
intellectual level.
Now to the dictionary definition of intellect that I point to in my
essay .
Bo:
> > In spite of this Pirsig repeatedly - inadvertently - returns to his
> > initial correct insight and presents intellect as the S/O divide alone.
> > He says that he saw no need to define intellect, everybody know what it
> > means and my dictionary says: “The power of the mind to reason
> > contrasted with feeling and instincts”. “Mind” can be omitted without
> > losing any meaning and because reason is objectivity itself and feeling
> > is subjectivity itself .. intellect is the S/O distinction.
Anthony:
> Again, this doesn’t follow. Your dictionary might state that
> “intellect” is “the power of the mind to reason contrasted with
> feeling and instincts” but even from ZMM alone it is clear that
> Pirsig’s quest to expand rationality
He did, but he had not acquired the final MOQ, ZMM's
Romantic/Static variety we now see as corresponding to the
social/intellectual levels.
> would tend to disagree with this
> definition.
No, it agrees perfectly. Reason was the dilemma Phaedrus'
teacher colleagues confronted him with, and he understood that
this could NOT be "expanded", it had to be made subordinate to
Quality. And he identified intellect as the S/O prism.
> The intellect for Pirsig also has to take into account of
> “feeling and instincts” as a guide for the highest quality behaviour
> i.e. the intuitive feel required for good motorcycle maintenance or, as
> in the example with Poincaré, the formulation of mathematical solutions.
This is also pre-MOQ and we can't use these things freely. As I
see it feelings (or emotions) are the social "expression". If it is
biology it's even worse, and instincts as part of intellect??!!. What
Pirsig hints to with the Poincaré and motorcycle examples is that
some have a Quality feel, be it math or technics.
Phew Anthony, I don't know how we are to be reconciled, you
with the fact that the SOL is over-over-documented, I with the
fact that no-one will ever understand in an acceptance sense.
Everybody believes that Pirsig has very strong opinions and that
the MOQ is copy-righted, but as you know he left things wide
open with the no-papal-bull ending.
Enough for now!
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 15 2005 - 20:25:30 BST