Re: MD Bolstering Bo's SOL

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jun 03 2005 - 17:26:38 BST

  • Next message: hampday@earthlink.net: "Re: MD Bolstering Bo's SOL"

    Dear Folks.
    Glad to "see" some familiar faces around, a special thanks to
    Platt for introducing my essay. For those who remember my
    obsession with the intellectual level the SOL idea (that intellect's
    value is the S/O distinction) this isn't shocking news exactly.

    Platt opens with this (after having quoted Pirsig from his
    Coplestone Paper)

    > What caught my eye was the connection between "intellectual
    > consciousness" and "subject-object relationship" which is Bo's point
    > about the 4th level.

    My essay does not say one single word about "consciousness"
    which IMO is one of those ambiguous concepts that another moq-
    like metaphysics could have been built round (in the Lila Squad
    days I made a list of suggestions for new MO..s)
     
    But the hardest thing to overcome is that of intellect as
    consciousness or mind. Pirsig said he did not define intellect
    because anyone capable of reading LILA knew what it was, still,
    dictionaries define intellect as the ability to distinguish between
    what is objective and what is subjective. What screws it all up is
    the notion of a mind doing the intellectualization, while it’s
    intellect that does the mind/matter-ization.

    Well, no need to re-write my essay ;-)

    Wim said to Platt's:
    > > I think Bo's point is that subject-object thinking dominates the
    > > intellectual level and thus defines it.

    First this. I don't say that SOM dominates the intellectual level, I
    say that it IS intellect. All of it, every last bit!

    > Do YOU consider that a proper way of defining something? Is life defined
    > by bacteria that dominate bio-mass??

    You are addressing Platt not me. My claim (in this context) would
    be that life is the biological level.

    Ham said:
    > While you two are "leveling" Bo's SOL dissertation, I need to point out
    > that in every mention of Value there is a stated or implied reference to
    > "consciousness". So, in my simplistic (SOM) interpretation of this topic,
    > you're all really talking about subjective consciousness.

    I don't see any consciousness implied by the Value word, but
    what is implied by the consciousness word is access to reality,
    when human beings wake from sleep they wake to reality. And
    there can't well be lesser forms of this reality, so when other
    creatures (that sleep) wake up, they do to what? This is a SOM-
    platypus and because SOM is rejected there is no such
    consciousness in the MOQ.

    But to return to my essay. A major point is that when Pirsig
    speaks about the intellectual LEVEL he invariably ends in the
    SOL, but when he treats "intellect" it is as if there is an intellect
    that the level is a sub-set of. The last comment is the letter to
    Paul Turner (forum page) where he forcefully rejects the original
    "thinking" definition, but ends up with the "manipulation of
    symbols". This is simply language, important enough as intellects
    social "carbon" but not IT.
     
                                   --------------------

    May I add one more thing. When the MOQ is applied to ZMM
    (and that is legal?) a level-related picture appears and it becomes
    clear that what is described as the emergence of SOM also is the
    emergence of the intellectual level. Socrates, Plato & Co
    represent the emerging intellect while the Sophists are social
    values "last stand". Also that ZMM's romantic/classic corresponds
    to the social/intellectual divide.

    ZMM page 366 (Corgi Paperback)
    > "Parmenides made it clear for the first time that the Immortal Principle;
    > The One, Truth, Good, is separate from appearance and opinion, and its
    > effect upon subsequent history cannot be overstated. It's here that
    > CLASSIC MIND, for the first time, took leave of its ROMANTIC ORIGINS and
    > said: 'The Good and the True are not necessarily the same' and goes its
    > separate ways. Anaxagoras and Parmenides had a listener named Socrates who
    > carried their ideas into full fruition." (my capitals)

    The SOL seems to pop up everywhere and is now so over-
    documented that it's almost embarrassing.

    Just a quick visit!

    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 : Fri Jun 03 2005 - 17:30:31 BST