From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jan 14 2004 - 20:27:01 GMT
JoVo and MD
Happy to speak to you again.
13 Jan. you wrote:
> now I begin to see, where Bo's understanding of the MoQ and it's
> derivations differs from mine (and seemingly many others).
Only now ...does it mean that up to now you haven't seen any
difference?
> I had never
> really understood, what excactly he means with his SOLAQI-concept. I
> and many others have had lots of arguments about his concept in the
> past ( I have reread yesterday parts of the discussion I had with Bo
> during that time in June of 2000 and later - 'Define the intellectual
> level', Fri 16. Jun; 'Archaeology about dimension', 5. Dec ). In Bo's
> opinion it is impossible for the intellectual level as described by
> Pirsig, to accommodate more than one system of thinking.
OK, if the "system of thinking" is of the SOM versus MOQ size.
> He views it
> to be exclusive, a 'closed party' so to say. It is therefore correct
> for him to conclude, that if SO-division holds the place of the
> intellectual level, the MoQ has got to be placed in the/a following
> level.
This covers my position well.
> Bo, your conclusion would be right - if your premises were. But apart
> from some logical reasons that contradicts them, Pirsig himself says
> expressis verbis, that [...] theMetaphysics of Quality does not insist
> on a single exclusive truth[...] (Lila, page 114, paperback - see
> also below).
Yes, I know the passage. Pirsig says that the value of the S/O
distinction is not to be discarded, only its metaphysical quality
which is taken over by the MOQ. He then goes on to say that in
this new Quality Reality many truths may exist, which I take to
mean that the S/O can be retained as a static truth - as the
intellectual truth - along with the social, biological and inorganic
sub-truths.
> The MoQ is "only" an expansion of modern western thought
> and not a complete replacement of it.
This is JoVo, not Pirsig? The MOQ replaces SOM that much is
certain, and I believe both old and modern western thought is
SOM, and yes Pirsig says that the S/O distinction is not to be
discarded and places it in the well-known way, I find that
relegating it to the intellectual level role fits the many-truth
concept better (as above).
> Besides there are some other
> systems of thinking - metaphysics - that compete with the MoQ, or are
> themselves part of the MoQ-basework (indian, asian). Yet they have to
> be asserted to the intellectual level.
In the PT letter Pirsig says:
PIRSIG:
> > * The argument that Oriental cultures would not be classified as
> > intellectual is avoided by pointing out that the Oriental cultures
> > developed an intellectual level independently of the Greeks during the
> > Upanishadic period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C. (These dates may
> > be off.)
Look, the Orientals DEVELOPED an intellectual level
independently of the Greeks. The intellectual LEVEL is
something that is developed ...no innate "intelligence" and/or
ability to "manipulate symbols". And the GREEKS developed
intellect, here he says it again!!
> The main reason for me to
> refute your SOLAQI-concept was, that I could not see the MoQ being
> anything else but a pattern of intellectual value itself. It is of a
> very high rank, no doubt, but nevertheless still an intellectual
> pattern.
But JoVo, if the Greeks were the instigators of intellectual value it
is the SOM ...that's written all over the ZMM ... and as the MOQ
is replacing the SOM it must be something beyond intellect,
unless the intellect=thinking is so fixed that you can't see beyond
it, but in the same letter Pirsig says:
PIRSIG: .. If
> > one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures just
> > because they are thinking about things, why stop there? How about
> > chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about earthworms? Don't they make
> > conscious decisions? How about bacteria responding to light and
> > darkness? How about chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our
> > intellectual level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its
> > meaning.
> Just guessing, I suppose that it was Pirsig himself, who
> partly induced this problem when using his 'box'-analogy, where he
> stated: "[... ] Whacko science. They were trying to lift themselves by
> their bootstraps. You can't have Box "A" contain within itself Box
> "B," which in turn contains Box "A." That's whacko. Yet here's a
> "science" which contains "man" [...] (Lila, page 62, paperback
> edition).
> In fact, we have then the logical problem, that Box A (MoQ) contains
> Box B (intellectual level as described by Pirsig), which in turn
> contains Box A again. While I find Pirsigs analogy in the given quote
> not very convincing, I don't see any severe problem in that sort of
> recursivity (spelling?) in this case. When thinking about thinking,
> this recursivity almost always occurs. I don't see any necessity to
> dwell on this problem any further and also I'm too lazy to so, by now.
The MOQ containing itself beyond intellect is no problem for my
logic, while it as a pattern (intellectual) of a sub-set (intellect) of a
sub-set (the static hierarchy) of itself is plain impossible.
> Alas, if not only Paul but even Pirsig himself fails to convince you,
> Bo, I don't see anything or anybody can do it.
You make it sound as a mental case ;-). But "Pirsig himself failing
to convince me"? It is from his writings that I conceived the SOL
idea, and as you see from his writings he confirms it again and
again.
> PS to Paul: I'm a great admirer of you writings. Surely belonging to
> the best of what has been contributed to this site
Agree ...as to his writings.
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 - 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 Jan 14 2004 - 20:28:09 GMT