From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 17:43:36 GMT
Paul mainly
24 Nov. you wrote:
> >No, it does not depend. From Quality's meta-premise the social
> >level is neither subjective nor objective, it was the 4th level that
> >brought this distinction into existence. From its premises all social
> >patterns - included emotions - are subjective while itself is
> >objectivity.
> Paul: I thought the SOL said that intellect is
> "subjectivity/objectivity itself," not "objectivity itself." But
> anyway, according to the SOL, emotions belong at the social level,
> right? But wait...
How can you misunderstand so grossly? Or maybe it's an
inevitable result from our different premises. I see things from
the MOQ premises beyond the static hierarchy, while you stay
inside it at the the 4th level - and the twain shall never match.
> >Let me try again: The dictionary defines "intellect" from within the
> >4th level, and predictably sees it as REASON divided from EMOTION.
> >From Quality's meta position the perspective opens up and the 4th
> >level becomes the S/O distinction itself
> >(emotion=subjective/reason=objective)
You too try it again. I say that the subject/object divide came to
be with the 4th level. THAT you hardly can question ... even if
you may see the SOM as merely one intellectual pattern.
> So, emotions belong in the intellectual level now, do they? As you
> have also previously stated to me that logic is found at the social
> level we are, once again, starting to see the SOL fall apart at the
> seams. Anger is now at a higher level of morality than inference.
The SOM - before it became a Q-level, before any level
whatsoever- saw emotions as subjective and itself as reason.
You seem so keen on denouncing the SOL that you don't see the
"inside-out" turn that things must undergo to understand the MOQ
...according to Pirsig.
About logic at the social level. When ancient 3rd. level people
saw natural phenomena as the work of gods, it was a logical
conclusion from their "social" premises. SOL does not fall the
least apart, it stands taller than ever.
> But later you spin the wheel again...
> >However, emotions will never
> >coincide with the intellectual level - that's different levels
> Paul: If emotions are subjective and all variations of
> subjective/objective reality exist at the intellectual level then
> surely emotions do coincide with the intellectual level. They are
> part of the dichotomy from which, according to you, the intellectual
> level is comprised.
As said, the social level (emotions) is not subjective, tha's from
intellect's static view. Then rest of your criticism based on this
fallacy is nil and void.
> Scott said:>> Why should we accept your definition?
> >Bo replied: This is my interpretation of the MOQ as presented in
> >Pirsig's books, that some later "annotations" messes it up and needs
> >Pauli "theses" to align them is a fact..
> Paul: It is your interpretation, full stop. Pirsig's position on
> subjects and objects and their place in the MOQ is set out in LILA and
> remains the same throughout his "annotations." There is no mysterious
> recantation of "the SOL." You'd love it if there was but there isn't.
> In LILA, in about the only place where Pirsig explicitly explains how
> subjects and objects (S/O[1], that is) fit into the MOQ scheme, he
> says quite clearly:
OK, who am I to stop you from sounding more and more like
Mark.
> But my question is, So what if it is entirely your own invention? Put
> an end to this wild goose chase and stop trying to prove an assertion
> that has been fairly and soundly defeated by virtually everybody you
> have discussed it with.
...with the same Jesuitic fervor. Regarding "...virtually everybody"
I'm not so sure, and about "..fairly and soundly defeated" I must
have missed that part. Do you really thing I would keep this up -
year after year - if anyone had shown me the flaw in it? While
you seem unaware of the rug being pulled from under you by
Pirsig's rejecting the Proto Quality divided in DQ/SQ. This
confirms SOL's Quality Reality beyond intellect - regardless of
seeing SOM as one intellectual pattern or as intellect itself.
> The SOL is your idea; you don't need the
> authority from anyone else to pursue it. You just need to be able to
> defend it with arguments and evidence which don't rely on support from
> the words of an author who explicitly rejects it.
So much in ZMM and LILA points to the SOL that I am sure of
being on the right track. For instance ZMM's "diagram" that says
that intellect=S/O.
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 Nov 25 2005 - 17:49:05 GMT