Re: MD The MOQ: An expansion of rationality

From: Valuemetaphysics@aol.com
Date: Sat Dec 20 2003 - 02:11:31 GMT

  • Next message: Steve Peterson: "Re: MD The MOQ: An expansion of rationality"

    Steve, Paul and All.

    18 Dec. Steve wrote:

    > Yes. Pirsig's pursuit of the ghost of reason was fruitful. He returned
    > with a rationality that could deal with values.

    Right, Phaedrus' of ZMM's opponent was REASON and he gave it
    a good thrashing (Pirsig tells Chris) by showing that it is a "ghost"
    i.e: in our minds only. At this stage P. reasoned from the
    subjective/objective premises where "in our mind" or "subjective" is
    the lowliest designation next to unreal.

    Mark 20-12-03: Reason is an aesthetic sense of harmonic relationships. As
    such, reason is an invention of the intellect. Inventions of the intellect are
    the highest value patterns in the MoQ.
    SoM is not reason; SoM is an intellectual description of social and
    biological discriminations which appeal to reason for their validity - a validity
    reason cannot provide.

    Bo:
    Phaedrus arrived at a new way of thinking that had values as its
    starting point, this was even at odds with the subject/object
    reasoning P. himself had started from and lead him to coin the
    term SOM. From this it follows that SOM=REASON, and that P.
    did not modify it but LEFT IT BEHIND for a new metaphysical deal.

    Mark 20-12-03: Reason is not SoM. This is an imposition of Bodvar Skutvik's
    which has no support in ZMM or Lila.

    Now, enter LILA and the MOQ and as "intellect" in dictionaries is
    defined as the capacity to reason in contrast to emotions and
    instinct it is pretty obvious that MOQ's intellectual level is the
    subject/object distinction. This interpretation pressed itself on me
    from very early in this discussion and has grown on me since.

    Where have I gone wrong?

    Mark 20-12-03: You have gone wrong by confusing reason with SoM.

    You ended your message thus:

    > In other words, rather than create a whole new level, you could have
    > instead reasoned as Pirsig did that subjects and objects are patterns
    > of value that fit perfectly in the fourth level

    Does Pirsig say that subjects and objects belong to the intellectual
    level? He says that objects are the patterns of the inorg.+organic
    levels and subjects that of the socio.+intell. levels. Its this person
    that says that intellect is the VALUE of the S/O distinction. ;-)

    Mark 20-12-03: This is a lie. Robert Pirsig does not state anywhere that,
    'intellect is the VALUE of the S/O distinction.'

    > as characterized by
    > manipulations of abstract symbols that stand for patterns of
    > experience.

    Symbols versus patterns of experience is SOM in a moqish garb,
    subjective symbols versus objective experience. Had it said "the
    value of a symbol/experience distinction" it would have been
    perfect.

    Mark 20-12-03: Symbols represent Inorganic, Organic, Social and Intellectual
    patterns of value. Experience is of value. SoM is a creation of the Intellect
    describing Inorganic, Organic and social discriminations.

    > Paul said:
    > > > I think this series of quotes
    > > > show that Pirsig conceived of the MOQ as a "root expansion" of
    > > > rationality and, as such, is also part of the intellectual level.

    > These quotes make it clear to me. Thanks for taking the time, Paul.

    Paul's job of amassing ZMM quotes is great, but this first one:

    > "Phædrus spent his entire life pursuing a ghost. That was true. The
    > ghost he pursued was the ghost that underlies all of technology, all
    > of modern science, all of Western thought. It was the ghost of
    > rationality itself."

    ...is Pirsig (as the narrator in ZMM) telling about his past as
    "Phaedrus". First that he was a superintellecual following the ghost
    of reason's reasoning to the bitter end ...which meant the Quality
    insight and the revelation that reason is the subject/object
    metaphysics. After that he started to pursue it in the persecution
    sense as I said above.

    Mark 20-12-03: There was no Quality insight as i have told you many times,
    and as you have agreed many times: Quality was imposed from out of the blue, and
    this imposition revealed the ghost of reason. Reason is not SoM. The
    statement that reason is SoM is an invention of Bodvar Skutvik.

    How Paul sees this as a refutation the "Quality beyond intellect"
    notion is beyond me.

    Sincerely
    Bo

    Mark 20-12-03: The only thing beyond you is your inability to recognise your
    own inventions qua your own inventions. You have become the, 'David Brent' of
    the MoQ.org
    Happy holiday in the Office Bo...
    All the best,
    Mark

    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 : Sat Dec 20 2003 - 02:13:57 GMT