From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Jan 27 2004 - 08:41:07 GMT
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 27 2004 - 08:45:27 GMT