From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Jul 02 2003 - 17:14:25 BST
Hi Bo,
As you know I've supported your SOLAQI interpretation of the intellectual
level. But, in the notes in Lila's Child, Pirsig raises a question I
hadn't considered before. To your assertion that "Subject/Object
Metaphysics could be seen as identical to the intellectual level of the
MOQ," Pirsig responded:
"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."
(Note 50.)
Now perhaps you've answered Pirsig's objection. If so I missed it and
would appreciate a brief repeat. I have no doubt that S/O metaphysics
dominates the intellectual level, but the question of where non-S/O higher
mathematics ought to go never occurred to me because I flunked high school
algebra. Nor would I recognize computer code if my life depended on it.
But surely they don't qualify as social level phenomena, and I don't think
we want to invent a new level just for them.
I'm delighted you're back giving us the benefit of your thoughts. Never
mind Squonk's personal attacks. As Pirsig says in Lila's child, ad hominem
arguments are "a form of evil." (Note 140.)
Platt
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 Jul 02 2003 - 17:12:58 BST