From: Johannes Volmert (jvolmert@student.uni-kassel.de)
Date: Thu Jan 15 2004 - 01:23:44 GMT
Hi Bo,
yes, it's always very interesting to have discussions with you; although
I have to read some sentences of your posts more than once to find out
what it could mean. I don't have that problem with other postings,
normally. I guess that has to do with your dealing on SOLAQI for years,
already... or whatever.
skutvik@online.no wrote:
>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?
>
JoVo answers: *grin*
Well, at least, one has to understand someone's hypothesis, before one
can see the differences to one's own view, isn't it? It is a second
question to ask where that non-understanding comes from.
>>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.
>
JoVo:
What do you mean by "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.
>
JoVo:
Agree
> 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.
>
>
JoVo:
What do you mean by "...that in this new Quality Reality many truths may
exist..." and
"...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?
>
JoVo:
Yes, that is my interpretation.
>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).
>
>
JoVo
Besides I do not quite understand the last part of that pargraph ("...,
I find that...."): This is your position again, but no additional
support of it.
>
>
>>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.)
>>>
>>>
JoVo:
and he finished his - the above - footnote with (Pirsig):
"The argument that the MOQ is not an intellectual formulation
but some kind of other level is not clear to me. There is nothing in the
MOQ that I know of that leads to this conclusion."
You might have already guessed, Bo, that it was this very sentence, that lead me to make my remark about your insistent efforts, concerning SOLAQI.
>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!!
>
JoVo:
Well, yes that is ok for me - more or less. No need to shout! :-))
>>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 ...
>
JoVo:
Yes they were! I don't understand what you have always with the Greeks.
And, yes, it is all written down in ZAMM.
>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:
>
JoVo:
At times of the Greeks it would have been correct for them to view their
intellectual system of value patterns as THE intellectual level
exclusivly, but we live today and we have not only the knowledge of
other intellectual patterns of value, no we have the moral obligation to
try to find better and better solutions for the description of the world
- i.o.w. - to develop a metaphysics that helps us to understand the
world. We are so lucky to have already such a metaphysics, the MOQ. But
Mr. Pirsig - as oustanding as his work is - is no alien; he doesn't
comes from Mars!
No, he is a contemporay and his thoughts and also the MOQ IS already a
synthesis out of different cultural influences including SOM, whether
you want that or not. And also Pirsig tells us to consider the MOQ as
provisional.
And how about the practical implementation: You pronounced in the above,
that it is a development what keeps working inside the intellectual
level; it is a process! What we will see, is a continuous, successive
shift, not a revolution. Except somebody would start a MOQ-revolution
and ...well put people into brainwash-camps to change their mental
structure. I don't believe you have that in mind. You think of total
different kind of man?
I honestly do not see, where that could come from. Biologically, there
won't be much change with mankind. And when will that start? Questions
and more questions!
That is the reason, why I would request you to give us a coherent
concept, as I put it in my additional posting.
I, for my part, would appreciate that much more, than these
question-and-answer-games we have played for so long, promising to be
benevolent.
>
>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.
>>>
>>>
JoVo:
What should that tell us at this point?
>>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.
>
>
JoVo:
I don't see what you want to state here.
>>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.
>
JoVo:
"Confirms it again and again"? I don't see any indications for that.
>
>
>>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
>
Bo, it is really not my intention, to make your SOLAQI-concept
ridiculous. I honestly try to understand it, but so far I cannot see
that it works. I 'm only quite astonished with what energy and amount of
time you pursue it.
In case you felt insulted by my closing words ("Alas, ...."), I wish to
apologize for it.
Write an essay about your concept! That is lots of work but it will be
appreciated.
My best regards, JoVo
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 : Thu Jan 15 2004 - 01:24:51 GMT