From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Dec 17 2003 - 09:37:28 GMT
Paul, Wim, Steve and all who it may interest.
15 Dec. Paul wrote:
> I interpret Wim to be saying that there is a "BoMOQ," but that there is
> a "Pirsig MOQ" as well. In other words, Pirsig has no claim to have
> written "the MOQ," right Wim? I personally find this a little dismissive
> of the author and I think Pirsig would distinguish between "the MOQ" and
> other interpretations. In a letter to Doug Renselle, he wrote:
The reason why my interpretation intellect (or any other static level)
is seen as such a sacrilege must be because MOQ's real scope
isn't understood. This does not dwell in the static realm, but in its
taking leave of the SOM, and that is farther up the lane - at the
DQ/SQ split - and anyone who accepts this adheres to the MOQ
no matter how he/she sees the various static levels.
> "The content of the first page of chapter 12 of Lila is really the
> essence of the MOQ and if someone wants to change this to something else
> he should certainly be allowed to do so. I think that to prevent
> confusion, however, it would be better if he called the results of his
> work by some distinguishing name. Otherwise he would be leaving the
> impression that I and others had approved of this change and had adopted
> it when, in fact, some of us might never have heard of it."
This is from 1996-7(?) and Pirsig have adjusted his views since
then. In his letter to you he admits to the intellectual level having
started to bother him. The letter to Doug Renselle was a result of
his opening up of all kinds of strange so-called quantum levels.
This really destroyed the beauty of the MOQ because it is
supposed to be "closed" at the bottom.
> As Pirsig wrote nothing about a "budding fifth level" which would
> fundamentally alter the framework laid out in chapter 12, I think Mark
> is correct to suggest that Bo's interpretation be distinguished from the
> MOQ presented in Lila.
Where in Chapter 12 is intellect defined as "symbol-manipulation"?
or worse "..an exact equivalent of mind". The cause for Mark's
dislike of the S/O-intellect is the said non-understanding of the
scope of the MOQ's, his intellect is a spiritual realm free of all
static chains. This may not be the reason for your dislike, but here
I agree with Wim: there is a QUALITY so great that nobody - not
even Pirsig - has probed all its potential. (If I got Wim right this
time?;-)
> Paul:
> What I find objectionable is not that you have interpreted Pirsig the
> way you have but when you say that your understanding of intellect "fits
> better what Pirsig actually has written about it in ZMM and LILA." If
> you had said something like "my understanding of intellect fits better
> with historical evidence/my experience/other theories" then I think it
> would be less likely to annoy Mark and myself.
The kick the MOQ gave me was that it made short thrift of the
SOM and I can't look on these blatant re-introductions of it into the
MOQ, be it Mark's "creative" one or your "symbol-manipulation" -
this based on Pirsig's words admittedly, but his view has changed
considerably from the initial "an exact equivalent of mind", the next
may be the correct one: "The VALUE of the S/O distinction".
(between symbols and that which is symbolized).
> Once you start rejecting the definition/boundaries of an entire level
> you inevitably have to redefine other levels/create new ones
This is not so, the S/O-definition of intellect does not require any
adjustment below. Regarding creating new ones. I have settled on
the Quality Idea as a rebel intellectual pattern, but naturally it hints
to some out-of movement. Still, Pirsig's placement of intellect in
the STATIC hierarchy implies - demands - a view off-set to intellect.
> and so you
> cannot say that what you have constructed fits better with the rest of
> the author's ideas,
This I still uphold. With the S/O-intellect so many unassimilated
pieces of the Q-puzzle find their pace. ZMM aligns seamlessly with
LILA ... everything fits. Most of all with all he writes about how
intellect builds on society and is dependence upon. This makes no
sense with a "manipulation of symbols" intellect, but fits smoothly
with intellect's claim to be the realm of objective truth versus
subjective opinion.
> and in the case of Robert Pirsig, he has repeatedly
> stated that he can see nothing in what he has written that would lead to
> the conclusions you have arrived at.
As said the mere placement of intellect in the static sequence
implies the MOQ as beyond intellect. No static level recognizes
any movement above itself and intellect is no better off. In the letter
Pirsig doubts if intellect can be defined from intellect's premises
and this discussion has proved that, but it's the MOQ that now
looks down on intellect and from there it is easily defined!
> If you choose to dismiss various
> parts of Pirsig's writing, why appeal to other parts of his writing to
> support your case?
We are all sinners here ;-)
Bo
PS
Steve wrote to-day
> Hi Wim,
> Could you explain what static patterns "migrating towards DQ" means to
> you? I can't make much sense of it. Are static patterns static or
> not? Maybe I'm being obtuse.
Right you are Steve, any dynamism in the lower levels is
impossible. What if the inorganic world started to unhinge?
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 Dec 17 2003 - 08:38:53 GMT