From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 13 2004 - 19:36:49 GMT
Paul
I certainly agree with you to the extent
that SOM is really a pattern that dominates
Western thinking and there are different
approaches to thinking in other 'locations'.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:12 AM
Subject: RE: MD SOLAQI confirmed?
> Hello Bo
>
> Bo quoted PIRSIG:
> > > "It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social
> > > structures such as courts and journals and learned societies to
> > > make itself known.
>
> Bo said:
> " ....the way SOM reasoning employs social strutures"!!!!! See, he
> treats SOM as representative of the value that followed social value and
> employs its value (in the known way). Nothing about any "intellect" that
> the SOM is a pattern of. If intellectual value were
> something else than SOM he would have spoken of this as "employing
> social structures", but no, he goes straight to SOM.
>
> Paul:
> Because the post he is responding to is all about SOM. You're really
> clutching at straws here Bo.
>
> Bo said:
> This is most telling, where does my reasoning go wrong?
>
> Paul:
> Your reasoning goes wrong because you see each level as being *one*
> value, SOM is the major intellectual pattern to have emerged in the west
> and so this forces you to conclude that *the value* of intellect is SOM.
> Thus, when Pirsig is saying that the MOQ uses subject-object reasoning
> for its own purpose, your metaphysics has no way to accommodate anything
> else in intellect but SOM, therefore you have to postulate your fifth
> level.
>
> As an analogy, biological patterns devour other biological patterns for
> their own purposes but this does not mean that we need to split the
> biological level. There is a hierarchy within each level. Are all
> societies equally good? In the intellectual level, the MOQ is, for us,
> at a higher level than SOM, as well as many other intellectual patterns.
> In Lila's Child, in the same post by Platt that provokes the comments
> from Pirsig that you are discussing, Platt writes: "Far from condemning
> SOM, the Metaphysics of Quality holds it to be the highest level yet
> achieved." To which Pirsig replies: "Within the intellectual level,
> mathematics, especially quantum mechanics, seems higher to me."
>
> Bo quoted PIRSIG:
> > > SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social
> > > structures,
>
> Bo said:
> That SOM isn't subordinate to society goes without saying, but here it
> is again: He treats SOM as representing the intellectual level
>
> Paul:
> Where? When you hear "SOM" you hear "intellect."
>
> Bo quoted PIRSIG:
> > > and the MOQ is not
> > > subordinate to the SOM structures it employs.
>
> Bo said:
> Then he goes on to say that the MOQ has a similar relationship to SOM
> (or intellect) See, that means that it is out of intellect ...in the
> known way of employing SOM without being subordinate to it.
>
> Paul:
> The relationship is that of a higher pattern to a lower pattern. But if
> you start from the false premise that all patterns of a level are of
> *the same value* you cannot accept this.
>
> Bo quoted PIRSIG:
> > > Therefore to say that the MOQ is based on SOM reasoning is as useful
> as
> > > saying that the Ten Commandments are based on SOM reasoning.
>
> Bo said:
> The Ten Commandments belong at the social level, thus when he says that
> they are not based on SOM reasoning he says that they aren't
> intellect-based. See, he uses SOM and intellect as if they are
> identical.
>
> Paul:
> Where? He has repeatedly denied that SOM and intellect are identical in
> the same set of annotations that you are now trying to use to contradict
> him. Is Pirsig really playing games with us? Is he so messed up that he
> can't be consistent from one note to the next?
>
> Bo said:
> And about the MOQ being based on SOM reasoning. Up above he actually
> says that the MOQ employs SOM's reason the way SOM's reason employs
> social structures". It points to the MOQ being "out of SOM" ...in other
> words beyond intellect.
>
> Paul:
> It points to a higher quality pattern using a lower quality pattern. I'm
> not sure that the MOQ is "out of SOM" either. He goes back behind SOM to
> the "oldest idea known to man" to perform a root expansion of
> rationality. In my interpretation anyway.
>
> Bo said:
> If the MOQ is just another intellectual pattern it is of the same nature
> as SOM. At the other levels there is continuity from the lowest pattern
> to the highest, why such an inconsistency at intellect?
>
> Paul:
> The continuity in intellect is that they all are patterns of
> independently manipulable symbols. If you are looking for an overriding
> value then it is truth. Truth is the not specific to SOM, the MOQ
> defines it a species of good by bringing truth and quality back
> together.
>
> Both SOM and the MOQ can be "reduced" to patterns of thought which can
> be graded on their "truth" and many other high quality intellectual
> patterns are not based on SOM.
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Tue Jan 13 2004 - 19:59:16 GMT