Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 9 Mar 1998 18:28:18 +0100
Fri, 06 Mar 1998 09:22:49 -0500
Doug Renselle (>) replied to Hugo's (>>) "Rambling on intellect and
life".
> Hugo Fjelsted Alroe ended his fine piece thus:
> > MoQ is on the path towards the good life, intellect and all, this I do
> > believe.
> This is what we MoQites KNOW about MoQ, viscerally, intellectually, and
> spiritually!
> Pirsig was so harmed by his quasi-intellectual persecutors that he shows
> extreme negative attitudes towards their SOM doctrine, with SOM's tiny
> mindset, and SOM's plethora of platypian paradice.
Doug, Hugo and Squad!
I fully understand Doug's need to 'avenge' Pirsig (P himself is
also harsh at times towards SOM), but Phädrus of LILA is not so
zealous. Somewhere he says something to the effect that it is not
the intention of the MOQ to trash all of subject/object
metaphysics, but how can SOM avoid being trashed if it
competes with the Quality of being reality?
"By being subsumed/demoted within MOQ and still usable within it.."
says Doug. Good, but this can only happen if it becomes an
integrated quality part, and as there are only four value dimensions
and their internal moral codes, where is it to be found? I will
hasten to say that I know Pirsig's own
"Inorganic+Organic=Objective/Social+Intellectual=Subjective" (SODV
paper), still I take the liberty to - again - launch the
"SOM-as-Intellect-of-MOQ" (SAIOM) idea again.
My line of thought is as follows:
1) In ZMM Pirsig claims that the original proto-MOQ (that which
survived as "Eastern Tradition") was replaced by the growing
impartiality and abstraction power of the old Greeks, and became the
Subject/Object division of Western tradition.
2) In LILA the very same event is formulated as the Social level (of
MOQ) being superimposed by the Intellectual level.
3) Put together these two "equations" have the
SOM-as-Intellect-of-MOQ (SAIOM) result.
Earlier on I have stressed that the Intellectual Level of MOQ must not
be seen as "ability to think" or "awareness of objective reality", but
perhaps can one relax a little bit here. About the first I am still
adamant, but can it be that Intellect of MOQ IS awareness; not of
objective reality free from social restraints, but of the value of
objectivity ---- and subjectivity. Awareness of the quality of a
self different from other (society).
I agree with what Hugo said earlier in his "Rambling..." entry about
SOM being a useful tool (and also with Platt in his comments of 7
March about SOM's value). The SAIOM idea meets their demands fully;
perhaps is the subject/object division the highest moral pattern
of the MOQ , while also satisfying Doug's requirement: it is
subservient to the overall DQ. I find that it ties the two together
seamlessly.
If it is a fruitful quality idea I don't claim rights, it was back
when we tried to define the top level that the notion took form, and
- of course - it is Pirsig's work that makes it possible to find such
new veins. Please, all of the Squad, put it under scrutiny and see if
there are weaknesses. To me it is like painting for too long on a
picture, I have lost my ability to look upon it freshly.
Bo
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:42:55 CEST