From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Jan 27 2004 - 19:50:33 GMT
2)Then there's LILA that leaves the impression of MOQ's
intellectual level emerging with the Greeks. Nowhere does it
speak of this being one pattern emerging from some proto-
intellect of manipulating symbols or - worse - of it being one
intellectual LEVEL from many possible LEVELS. All this are later
ad-hoc patch-ups. It was the emergence of THE intellectual
LEVEL - exclamation mark!
DM: Not sure about this. Pirsig puts the MOQ together by going back
to the Greeks to uncover the starting point of SOM. SOM is an error,
in terms of consistency with experience despite its achievements,
Pirsig suggests we go back to the starting point to try a new path.
You have a very good case for the way SOM has dominated and
contributed to our intellectual capacity and development, without
SOM intellect can make little progress towards modernity, however
placing it on a level and proclaiming it as the basic form of all intellect
is over stating the case. Apart from anything else, the ideas of levels
depends
on the ideas in the MOQ, in contrast SOM tends to either the level-less
surfaces of post-modernism (extreme subjectivity in a way) or the
level-less view of reductionist materilism (extreme objectification)
where intellect, creativity and agency become totally implausible.
Thankfully the ideas of MOQ give us an alternative to try, and it
works well for me. Roy Bhaskar's philoophy of science seems to
be attempting to look at science in the context of a better philosophical
grasp of DQ.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 8:41 AM
Subject: Re: MD SOLAQI confirmed?
> Matthew, primarily
>
> 24 Jan. you wrote:
>
> > I replayed this little dialogue because I wanted to say something
> > about argumentation. I think Paul's right, as long as Bo claims that
> > there is a necessary, logical connection between 1-3, he stands on
> > poor ground, that somehow just because it was first means that
> > everything follows in its footsteps.
>
> Allow me a repetition of my reasoning.
>
> 1) ZMM describes the emergence of the SOM with the Greeks.
> There is no argument about that?.
>
> 2)Then there's LILA that leaves the impression of MOQ's
> intellectual level emerging with the Greeks. Nowhere does it
> speak of this being one pattern emerging from some proto-
> intellect of manipulating symbols or - worse - of it being one
> intellectual LEVEL from many possible LEVELS. All this are later
> ad-hoc patch-ups. It was the emergence of THE intellectual
> LEVEL - exclamation mark!
>
> 3) Then to draw the Intellect=SOM conclusion is no break of
> logical rules or use of false premise.
>
> > Plants and animals are both
> > biological, but most people wouldn't claim that just because
> > plants/animals evolved first doesn't mean that all animals/plants are
> > plants/animals. That seems a little silly.
>
> Pirsig merely postulates THE biological level emerging. Had he
> linked it to something - say - proteins - it would have been
> correct to say that all subsequent biological patterns are protein-
> based (which is good biology too) and it would have been
> analogous to the intellectual issue where he links it to SOM and
> where I claim that all intellectual patterns are S/O based.
>
> This Greek=Intellect=SOM isn't just a coincidence - in the MOQ -
> as so many want it to be, but of intimate relationship. The toga
> (dress) also emerged with the Greeks, but nobody links this to
> intellect ;-).
>
> > However, I don't think saying "logical refutation" gets at what's
> > really going on. I don't think Bo's suddenly wrong because we can't
> > get from 1 and 2 to 3. What that sometimes means is that there's
> > another premise laying around that would make sense of the reasoning
> > chain. As an interpretational issue of what Pirsig means by the
> > "intellectual level," I think Bo doesn't have a leg to stand on, but
> > as a piece of philosophy I don't see why anybody else isn't as creaky
> > as he is. I think if Pirsig had meant SOM to be the intellectual
> > level, he might have said it.
>
> I know that Pirsig doesn't endorse it, but it's a great mystery how
> he could avoid drawing this SOL conclusions and thereby
> harmonize ZMM and LILA. Instead we have the SOM that - in
> addition to being an intellectual pattern - is spread across the
> static hierarchy in the known way. We also have this mysterious
> Quality of ZMM - the Sophists and all - that sits without any
> connection to LILA. Not to speak of the Quality Event. What
> intellect is the pre-intellect it speaks of?
>
> He could have seen the obvious: That the mythos (that the SOM
> replaced) aligns perfectly with the Social Level of the MOQ, its
> value (Aretê) answers every description of social value (shining
> Hector ..etc.). And then let SOM become MOQ's intellect and the
> MOQ which replaces SOM (transcends intellect) become a
> "rebel" intellectual pattern (no great issue that). And in this light
> the Quality Event is DQ becoming S/O-patterned by intellect.
> Everything fits like the proverbial hand and glove and makes his
> QUALITY one single unbroken line from the ZMM onwards.
>
> > However, I think you can still claim
> > that the spirit of what Pirsig wrote was leading to the equation of
> > SOM and intellect though Pirsig never enunciated it.
>
> Right.
>
> > Barring even
> > that, Bo can still define SOM as intellect and see how far he gets in
> > developing, defending, and using his view. Does it clear up holes in
> > Pirsig? Does it clear up other philosophical anamolies? If Bo did
> > this (which is what I think he should do), then it wouldn't matter if
> > it was in Pirsig at all. You wouldn't be able to "logically refute"
> > it at all. It would be a different vocabulary with which you could
> > only contrast and compare the advantages and disadvantages of each.
>
> Wise words.
>
> > So, pace Paul, I think this exactly is an interpretational issue as Bo
> > has framed it and that is exactly why he is wrong as he's framed it.
>
> Spare met ;-)
>
> > As a theory, though, as opposed to an explication of Pirsig, he's not
> > going to be refuted as long as he sticks to his guns. And at that
> > point all you can do is make your theory look good and the other guy's
> > look silly.
>
> Right you are.
>
> IMO
> 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
>
>
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 27 2004 - 21:10:34 GMT