Hi Bodvar and all,
I hope you enjoyed the "break". I'm pleased to see you return to the
discussion replenished.
>This month's topic hasn't exactly turned people
>on and after reading Jonathan's latest I believed that he had
>succeeded in leading everyone astray, but there are a few who
>understand.
Bodvar, I won't pretend that your comment isn't hurtful. Where did that
come from? I can't even properly rebut it, because you don't specify
what it is that I said that you object to.
>As usual it is the Intellectual level which is the acid
>test of the MOQ.
>
>The subject-object metaphysics will haunt the MOQ forever if not
>the "mind" notion of Q-Intellect is done away with ...
Bodvar, it should be quite clear that I agree with you that Pirsig's
treatment of the Intellectual level cause certain problems. In
the quote provided by Dan, Pirsig says:
"MOQ treats 'mind' as the exact equivalent of 'static intellectual
patterns'"
Elsewhere in Lila, (Ch 12, p177 in my edition), Pirsig says that the
word 'mind' in the conventional SOM sense is equivalent to the MoQ's
social-intellectual patterns. In the following paragraph, Pirsig applies
the term "subjective" to these patterns.
Bodvar says:
>I think Pirsig is a bit defensive here and should have taken it all
>out ....to prevent confusion.To treat "mind" as the exact equivalent
>of Q- Intellect and otherwise avoid it is next to impossible. Hamish
>Muirhead has presented an alternative static sequence with no
>Intellectual level, and I agree whole-heartedly. If Intellect is
>equalized with SOM's "mind" there is no such level at all.. . .
I completely agree.
Can I please have a pointer to Hamish's proposal - I can't
it. How does it differ from what I suggested on 7th Dec 1988?
Ref:
http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/9812/0049.html
>JONATHAN FLOATS A TRIAL BALLOON
>SUGGESTING REMOVING INTELLECT AS A LEVEL
This was pursued in the "3 vs. 4 levels" thread that same month.
( http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_focus/9910/0236.html )
However, I don't understand what Bodvar means by the following:
>The Q-intellect is out of Q-Society and no subjective mindish realm.
>Regarding metaphors they fall - along with language as such - on
>the subjective side of SOM. Words are symbols, descriptions of
>something at the objective side; [snip]
>And, according to Jonathan, as the MOQ
>is presented by language it is metaphorical, ie. subjective.
IMO, Bodvar misrepresents my point entirely. This is because of his
assumption that metaphors are intrinsically subjective. I made no such
assumption when I wrote (13th Sept 2000):
>According to the MoQ, patterns of substance are just a subset of
>patterns of value, i.e. a special sort of metaphor greatly valued by
>scientists.
Bodvar says:
>[Jonathan] views the MOQ in light of the SOM and that is not the way to
do it.
Bodvar, I hope you won't be offended if I ask you to re-read your own
post. IMHO, you are the pot calling the kettle black.
However, to end on a less argumentative note:
BODVAR
>However if 'meaning' is an aspect of
>it a "Metaphysics of Metaphors" (MOM) is possible along with the
many MOQ mutations we have encountered here [snip]
>If THAT is [Andreas's] (and Jonathan's) point I humbly beg
>everybody's pardon.
Bodvar, your apology is very welcome ;-)
Be well,
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST