Hi Bodvar and all,
BO
<<<Sorry but it's impossible to bring the discussion back on track
without a little rudeness. It's not a personal thing, trust me. >>>
Bodvar, I'm glad that you understand this. As you know, I also dish it
out on occasion.
<<<Also, it is hard to specify [the objection to what Jonathan wrote],
but look to the opening message of [Jonathan's] this month:
> Maybe I'm being dense here, but I don't see how something
> abstract can be anything other than metaphorical. [snip]
> By this way of thinking, the whole of the MoQ or any other idea
> is nothing but metaphor.
>>>
Bodvar, IMO your failure to be specific is a common feature of your
posts. I thank you for now following up and clarifying things.
<<<Until your letter only Wavedave and Mark had delivered anything
and none of them claimed that the MOQ is a methaphor or an
abstraction, you were the first who make that point.
Abstract in contrast to concrete is arch-SOMish and by making
that the opening move, the scene was rigged.>>>
Bodvar, I agree that the abstract vs. concrete thing is
arch-materialism.
However, materialism assumes a bedrock of absolute "material" reality.
In MoQ, everything can be considered an abstraction of something else
(e.g. the relationship between the levels). Had I left this unstated,
your charge of scene-rigging would have more substance. However, I
explicitly stated that ALL patterns can be considered metaphors.
Bodvar:
>Dan's and Mark's agreement with you I doubt, . . .
Dan was explicit about it (8th Sep):
>indeed all reality is ultimately metaphorical in nature.
If I've misconstrued Mark's reaction, I'll leave it to him to correct
me!
Bodvar:
<<<After the first postulate of the MOQ that the World is Value
(convincingly or unconvincingly demonstrated is not a point for
those who have accepted it) the subject-object division does not
apply in its former role any longer. .. >>>
Bodvar, please clarify what you consider that "role" to be. The
subject-object division functions in the same manner whether or not one
makes it subservient to Value.
<<<In the SOM metaphors are
language and as language is ABSTRACT (in contrast to
CONCRETE). Ipso facto: Another dee-dum subject/object offshoot.
>>>
And your point is? If after all that, you agree that Metaphors are
abstract, then you are as dense as I claimed to be in my opening post
(that you quote above).
Alternatively, maybe you claim that metaphors are not abstract - I'd
like to see your argument for that.
On second thoughts, let's just just cut to what I consider to be the MoQ
position: metaphors have value and are therefore real.
Bodvar, can we at least agree on that?
Bodvar
<<<In my opinion language was/is the ultimate social instrument that
Intellect used as a vehicle for its own purpose which is subject-
objectivism itself. ...>>>
I agree that language is a primary vehicle for intellectual activity
since the dawn of human civilization - long, long before the emergence
of subject-object based philosophy. Where I disagree is your attempts to
limit Intellect to subject-objectivism only. Pirsig's novels and the MOQ
website are strewn with quotes from great intellectuals such as Einstein
and Poincare that attach great importance to the emotional/intuitive
part of intellect.
Jonathan
> Pirsig says (ch. 12 of Lila) 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:
<<<At Pirsig's depth of understanding that way - for the MOQ to
"contain" the SOM - works, and I am not questioning his way. Yet,
for me the SOL (intellect= the whole S/O aggeregate) works better.
>>>
Excuse me Bo, but you are indeed questioning Pirsig's way when you say
that you find his scheme worse that your own. You are entitled to do
this, but please be honest about it.
Bodvar:
> >Hamish
> >Muirhead has presented an alternative static sequence with no
> >Intellectual level, and I agree whole-heartedly.
...
>Hamish showed it to me in a private letter. I don't know if it is
>"copyrighted"
Bodvar, I don't know how you expect me or anyone else to discuss a
letter that only you have seen!!!
Jonathan
> 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
Bodvar:
>That you also have such a proposal is new to me (I'll
>look into it),
However, Bo, the fact that you make a habit of ignoring what people
write in this forum is nothing new to me!!!! I consider your behaviour
to be intellectually lazy and dishonest.
>but by this month's exchange it sounds like you waver
>between ...nothing BUT intellect, or NO intellect. Exactly as in the
>subject/object metaphysics where everything is mind or nothing is.
It will be much clearer if you read the archived posts. The point was
that it might be better to consider intellect as a non-level. Non-level
concepts are ubiquitous - just think of all the words that can apply to
patterns of any level or every level. In my 3 level scheme, there is no
intellectual LEVEL, but intellect applies to all levels.
Bodvar
> >The Q-intellect is out of Q-Society and no subjective mindish realm.
>A MOQ tenet is that all static levels are out of the parent level
[snip]
Thanks for clarifying.
> Intellect is supposed to have society at its bottom something
> Pirsig shows very convincingly in LILA, but if SOM's mind is
> supposed to be
> .....the exact equivalent of 'static intellectual patterns'
> the opposite must apply: Intellect is the exact equivalent of 'mind',
> and I don't find the social "nucleus" here.
Bodvar, I find it strange how you can call Pirsig's treatment of
intellect as convincing! You've given too many arguments to the
contrary, and I agree with many of them (as I said in my previous post).
IMO Pirsig's treatment of intellect is the least convincing aspect in
Lila.
Bodvar, I have a request. Please try and answer the specific questions I
ask, so we can have some explicit points of agreement. Also, when you
wrote "I'll look into it", I hope that means you are finally going to
read the relevant thread in the archive!
Regards to all,
Jonathan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST