From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Oct 03 2003 - 17:48:13 BST
Hi Dan.
2 Oct. you wrote:
BO prev:
> >A very short version of my objection is that most people - Pirsig
> >included - tend to define intellect as the ABILITY to manipulate
> >symbols. I want it to be the value of the symbol/experience DIVIDE
> >itself. Can you see the connection to ZMM about "gravity sitting 'out
> >there' waiting for Newton to discover it"? Like P. of ZMowards a I claim
> >that there were no symbols (different from experience) until the
> >intellectual value CREATED this schism, while so many want to see
> >symbols "sitting out there" waiting for someone to start manipulating
> >them.
> I remember you once brought up Helen Keller as an example of how the
> intellectual level operates. Recently I happened across a biography of
> Ms. Keller and enjoyed reading it very much. In it, she mentioned how
> she had a sudden insight when her teacher ran water over one hand
> while spelling "water" in the other. Until that moment, Ms. Keller
> didn't understand how to collect and manipulate symbols. I think you
> could say at that moment, she suddenly understood subject and object
> metaphysics. But it was her intellect that allowed that understanding,
> not subject object metaphysics itself. So I don't see how SOM can be
> the intellect in this case.
First let me say that I am sorry to have alienated you. Squonk's
opinion I could not care less for, but with you it's different. I may have
a cocksure style, but this I have practiced from day one. Likewise
have I wielded my SOLAQI idea unto exhaustion, so what's wrong all
of a sudden? I can't see the great sin in pointing to things we
disagree with - with each other and even with Pirsig.
You are right about Helen Keller "suddenly understanding the S/O"
but her initiation was so special as to be called "through the back
door". As Pirsig says in his letter, ancient cultures had language yet
weren't Q-intellectuals. Now, most people - ancient and modern -
usually learn to speak as very young by hearing, but HK was deaf and
blind and had no language before the said episode, so she entered
the S/O reality simultaneously with (slightly ahead of even) language.
In a flash she understood the difference between the symbol realm
and the "water" realm. After that she quickly developed the skill of
manipulating symbols. While - as said - people of old could speak and
thus manipulated symbols without being on the intellectual level.
About "intellect that allow understanding" is the fallacy of treating
INTELLIGENCE as the INTELLECTUAL level. This Pirsig also does
and it creates a lot of confusion. (see my comments to the letter in a
coming message)
> I'm not sure how the integrity of the MOQ as RMP envisions it can be
> maintained without coming to an understanding with annotation #67. It
> ties in with so much of his thinking that rejecting it amounts to
> rejecting the MOQ. We are of course free to develop our own
> metaphysics but like Mr. Pirsig says, it should be named something
> else to prevent any confusion.
I met the MOQ through ZMM and LILA and it is this I defend against
some of the the annotations in LC. What is it so offending with that,
and why should it require a separate name?. The MOQ is a marvelous
creation and I axcept all its fundamentals and my admiration for Pirsig
it limitless, but when he grates my logic...well sorry if it grates your
loyalty.
> Static levels are Quality so if they are illusionary then so is
> reality. And if Quality=Reality then Quality is illusionary as well.
Please Dan. This is Pirsig's point when - for instance - he he spends a
considerable time railing against the illusion of intellects
independence of society. But it's a good illusion which has given us
the modern world. This goes for all levels, they are discrete yet
dependent on the former. The illusory quality of the static levels is
what links the MOQ and Zen Buddhism IMO.
> Again, I don't think the integrity of the MOQ as Robert Pirisig
> envisions it can be maintained by making the MOQ itself some sort of
> rebel pattern.
You are free to disagree ....
> I don't use words like "illusions, hallucinations, schizophrenia"
> since these are terms for what I take to be biological diseases of an
> abnormal brain. If (in ancient times) the brain was biologically
> different than now, such intellectual patterns of value would have
> been considered normal and not abnormal at all. I believe that was
> Jaynes' point, not that humanity suffered from collective
> hallucinations although it's the easiest thing in the world to think
> they did. This reminds me of the passage in ZMM where Chris asks his
> father if he was really insane and his father answers, no.
...... but this more than anything proves the MOQ as a rebel pattern.
Intellect can't but see this (above) as abnormal, but we who have
obtained the MOQ view off-set to intellect can see a new context.
Intellect can never change its S/O pattern. That view was that allowed
the father's remark to Chris.
NB!
The intellectual level is NOT thinking/understanding, so it's perfectly
possible to think quality thoughts and understand the Quality
Metaphysics.
> Actually I thought it was you who wrote the birth of language equals
> the birth of intellect. If not, then please disregard this as my
> mistake.
That must be long ago. If you mean that the "language-thought
transition theory" is saying that language is the intellectual level ...it
does not!!
Sincerely 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 -
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 Oct 03 2003 - 18:35:15 BST