From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Nov 29 2005 - 09:52:50 GMT
Ian
27 Nov. you wrote:
> Bo, I said more about this in Paul's "Two Theses" thread. Your
> examples of having one's cake and eating it don't really help me. I
> see no problem with an MoQ that includes it's own definition of
> MoQ-Intellect within a layer (4th) within itself.
Don't you see the logic violation by MOQ being contained inside
a sub-set of itself? Pirsig makes a great number of a greater
container not fitting inside a smaller, but this is a glaring example
of just that. Paul tries to patch it up by saying that DQ is beyond
the intellectual level, but that means that DQ is outside the MOQ
- something that Pirsig just have rejected: There is only DQ/SQ,
and if so DQ cant fit inside a static level of its own. No sarcasm
but logic (be it just an intellectual discipline) can't be abolished.
> (Your examples of
> classical and new scientific theories are slightly misleading - the
> new supersedes the old in two ways - by inclusion (where aspects of
> the old remain valid) and by replacement (where the old is proven
> false)
Isn't this exactly the case regarding SOM's relationship with the
MOQ in the SOL interpretation? The old metaphysics SOM being
included by becoming the highest static level, but replaced in the
sense of becoming subordinate to the MOQ. I see all criteria met.
> Paul (and Squonk) are making essetially the same points about Bo's
> SOL, but I prefer Paul's intellectual development of his arguments to
> Mark's :-) Ultimately there is no appeal to authority, and Pirsig's
> own words contain contradictions too. Where Paul quotes LILA "Objects
> are inorganic and biological values; subjects are social and
> intellectual values.", I buy that. It's not precise or comprehensive,
> (there are clearly GOF objects in the social & intellectual layers
> (albeit intangible ones), but the sense is right, and that's what
> matters.
Right, the "orthodox" way of integrating the SOM is neither
precise nor comprehensive ...Good old F...? So why stick to it?
> Bo I find it very strange you're hanging onto your pet theory, without
> modification of terms of reference, in the light of what looks like
> much reasoned argument. It's a pity you resort to pejorative rhetoric
> like Paul's "acolytes" and "allowing Paul to think like Mark" to
> defend it. I can understand if not condone Mark's attitude to arguing
> with you.
Phew it's tough when accusations are put in this friendly yet
exasperated tone as if I'm a difficult child not understanding my
own good. The thing is that the SOL is written all over Pirsig's
work and what's more: only by this interpretation does it attain its
fantastic explanatory power. Without it just another dee-da-dum -
intellectual theory.
An example of the SOL in LILA: Pirsig (rightfully) keeps banging
science over the head for not admitting its social origin. Well
what is science if not the arch-SOM representative and why does
he use science to highlight intellect's relationship with society if
not SOM=intellect?
When Pirsig writes freely and naturally he promotes the SOL, as
in the case when he actually says that the intellectual level
emerged with the Greeks (and consequently is SOM) but then he
catches himself and starts about another "intellect"; a mind-like
faculty, that contains "ideas" and can have a totally different idea-
content in the East.
And this goes on. When providing examples of intellectual
patterns they invariably are SOM-ish. "Science" - the said arch-
SOM representative. "Democracy" - straight from SOM's
homeland Greece. "An objective judicial system" - speaks for
itself. "Free Press and all freedoms of expression" - to prevent
(Socratic) truth from succumbing to censorship. "Human rights" -
a democracy fallout, something almost all examples are by the
way.
So I am equally exasperated by you Ian overlooking all these
things just because Paul makes it sound like he's defending poor
Pirsig from vicious attacks from this person. BTW, Pirsig said to
me (after having read my essay) that if it had quality it would
percolate to the top, so he has not rejected it outrightly as various
persons like to think.
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 : Tue Nov 29 2005 - 10:50:10 GMT