RE: MD SOLAQI confirmed.

From: Dan Glover (daneglover@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Jan 16 2004 - 18:04:45 GMT

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD: MOQ Where's the matter gone?"

    Hello everyone

    >From: skutvik@online.no
    >Reply-To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >To: moq_discuss@moq.org
    >Subject: MD SOLAQI confirmed.
    >Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 08:58:42 +0100
    >
    >Dan and all interested parties (Platt mentioned).
    >
    >I discovered that this post hadn't made it to the forum - at least
    >not in my box Anyway I resend it.
    >
    >6 Jan. Dan wrote:
    > > > Platt is writing about your idea that SOM is the intellectual level of
    > > > the MOQ and the role SOM plays in the MOQ. Following this line of
    > > > reasoning, Platt writes: "...the MOQ is an SOM document based on SOM
    > > > reasoning," to which Robert Pirsig replies:
    >
    >Ahh! Now I see. Platt's "...the MOQ is a SOM document ...etc" may
    >sound a little provocative, but look what Pirsig says.
    >
    >PIRSIG:
    > > > "It employs SOM reasoning the way SOM reasoning employs social
    > > > structures such as courts and journals and learned societies to
    > > > make itself known.
    >
    >" ....the way SOM reasoning employs social strutures"!!!!! See,
    >he treats SOM as representative of the value that followed social
    >value and emplys 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.
    >This is most telling, where does my reasoning go wrong?

    Hi Bo

    In order to understand this better perhaps it's best to determine what
    Robert Pirsig means when he says "SOM reasoning." You seem to think he means
    SOM as equivalent to intellect but I don't believe that's what he's getting
    at. If it were as you say, SOM reasoning would tend towards
    redundancy--intellectual reasoning. I believe what RMP means by "SOM
    reasoning" is reasoning that is based on the rudiments of subject-object
    metaphyics. I take this to mean that the intellect is capable of other kinds
    of reasoning besides SOM reasoning.

    >
    >PIRSIG:
    > > > SOM reasoning is not subordinate to these social
    > > > structures,
    >
    >That SOM isn't subordinate to society goes without
    >saying, but here it is again: He treats SOM as representing the
    >intellectual evel

    I don't think this is quite right. I believe he treats SOM as an
    intellectual pattern of value.

    >
    >PIRSIG:
    > > > and the MOQ is not
    > > > subordinate to the SOM structures it employs.
    >
    >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.

    If SOM is the equivalent of intellect then it stands to reason (intellectual
    reason) that the MOQ is subordinate to SOM as the MOQ is a product of
    intellect (SOM). This is perhaps why RMP includes your name in his
    annotation!

    >..
    >PIRSIG:
    > > > Remember that the central
    > > > reality of the MOQ is not an object or a subject or anything else.
    >
    >Of course, but that does not contradict anything of what I am
    >saying. Young Phaedrus reasoning started from SOM's premises.
    >IT WAS ITS SHORTCOMINGS THAT PROVOKED THE Q-
    >INSIGHT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
    >
    >PIRSIG:
    > > > It is understood by direct experience only and not by reasoning of
    >any
    > > > kind.
    >
    >DQ it is understood by direct ...etc, but the MOQ now employs
    >reason for its own purpose without being subordinate to it.

    The central reality of the MOQ is not understood intellectually. The central
    reality of the MOQ isn't understood using reasoning of any kind including
    SOM reasoning. You can only understand the central reality of the MOQ
    yourself. I don't believe this has anything to do with subject-object
    metaphysics.

    >
    >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.
    >
    >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. 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.

    I believe we all agree that the MOQ is an idea of Robert Pirsig's but I just
    don't see how the MOQ can be an idea if it is beyond intellect. If the MOQ
    isn't an idea, an intellectual pattern of value, then what is it? How is the
    MOQ different from any other idea? The MOQ is a better idea than SOM but
    they are both ideas.

    >
    >PIRSIG:
    > > > It doesn’t tell us anything about the essence of the
    > > > Ten Commandments
    > > > and it doesn’t tell us anything about the essence of the MOQ."
    > > > (Lila's Child, note #125)
    >
    >It's in the light of the MOQ we see the Ten Commandment as
    >non-SOM, thus to see the MOQ as non-SOM it is necessary to
    >relegate it to the role of intellect - all of it - if the MOQ is just
    >another intellectual pattern it is of the same same nature as
    >SOM. At the other levels there is continuity from the lowest
    >pattern to the highest, why such a inconcistency at intellect?

    It seems to me that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern of value like the SOM
    but the MOQ is a better intellectual pattern of value, a better idea. I see
    no inconsistency.

    >
    > > Dan:
    > > I think that's why he includes you in his
    > > next annotation that I quoted previously.
    >
    >Yes, yes, obviously, but it seems like he affirms the
    >SOM=intellect idea in every sentence.

    I'm guess I'm just not seeing things the same way as you do but thank you
    for your comments. It's always a pleasure to hear from you.

    Dan

    _________________________________________________________________
    Find high-speed ‘net deals — comparison-shop your local providers here.
    https://broadband.msn.com

    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 : Fri Jan 16 2004 - 18:05:49 GMT