From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Sep 23 2005 - 09:28:40 BST
Anthony and All.
22 Sep. u wrote:
> Ant McWatt stated September 20th:
> >Ifve never seen Pirsigfs comments in gLilafs Childh as any more
> >than a further explanation of some of the ideas put forward in LILA
> >and in fact these comments corrected some of the more misleading
> >ideas that people were propounding (on this Board) around 2000. One
> >of these ideas was SOL which I've still never seen explained clearly.
> Bo Skutvik replied September 21st:
> Not explained clearly? You mean that it is not implied in Pirsig's
> work?
> Ant McWatt comments:
> What I mean is that Ifve never read an explanation of SOLAQI (SOM as
> the MOQ's intellect) from yourself (or anyone else) in which Ifve
> been able to follow a well set out argument.
I think that stems from the same blockage I demonstrated in the
excerpts from LILA. The SOL is written all over the MOQ, it's just
that Pirsig refrains from drawing the conclusion. Every time
"intellect" is the natural follow-up term he shifts to "science" or
"knowledge".
Pirsig does in fact says that what happened in Greece (explained
in ZMM as the emergence of SOM) was the emergence of the
intellectual level.
... the Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level
independently of the Greeks during the Upanishadic
period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C. (These dates
may
Here he says that the Greeks developed the intellectual LEVEL
and if the same event is described as SOM the fact emerges that
Intellect is SOM. Isn't this enough? About "another" intellectual
level with the orientals is another discussion.
> To cut to the chase, if SOM was the intellectual level of the MOQ then
> that would mean the MOQ itself is part of SOM or that the MOQ is a
> non-intellectual static pattern (such as a social one). Both options
> seem nonsensical to me.
That the MOQ is "out of intellect", "beyond intellect", "non-
intellectual" is plain. But it's not a retro-movement back to social
value.
The logical consequences are most dire for "orthodoxy". The
MOQ as an intellectual pattern means that the whole is to be
contained inside a sub-set of a sub-set of itself. It violates the
container analogy that Pirsig speaks of, while the SOL says that
the MOQ is (contained in/by) itself which is allowed logically.
> Maybe an idea for a future gMOQ through the Looking-glassh? :-)
This was a bit garbled at my end, but "for the future" definitely.
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 : Fri Sep 23 2005 - 10:30:31 BST