Ant McWatt (email@example.com)
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 13:37:49 +0100
On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 14:47:36 -0500 Doug Renselle
> Anthony and TLS,
> YES! YES! YES!
> It delights me that you still have the energy to pursue this.
Thanks for your encouraging remarks.
> We did not discard SOM, we subsumed its rearrangement and
> reclassification, but we did not nor do we wish (opinion) to adopt SOM
> as MoQ's intellect.
Well, to be fair to Bodvar and the MOQ, I think the SAIOM
issue has to be sorted out either way. The problem I have
in evaluating this idea is that I`m still not totally
clear in my own head what Bodvar is getting at. Hence the
number of questions to him in my last e-mail.
Last night I found a phrase (which I meant to paste on
the LS before) where Pirsig mentions mind. It states:
"The word "mind" is freighted with all sorts of historic
philosphical disputation. Buddhists use it much
differently than Western idealists who use it much
differently than Western materialists. Like the term
"God", it`s best avoided. To prevent confusion, the MOQ
treats "mind" as the exact equivalent of "static
intellectual patterns" and avoids use of the term when
(letter to Anthony McWatt, January 2nd 1998)
Is that any help to anyone? Does it reduce the CONFUSION?
For me the word "subject" denotes mind and society while
"object" denotes chemicals and biology. In light of the
above statement, to put subjects and objects (together)
as equivalent to the MOQ intellectual level seems contrary
to Pirsig`s thinking.
> Anthony makes a key point: how is MoQ's intellect different from SOM as
> intellect of MoQ (SAIOM)? The answer for me is that SOM rejects/denies
> Value. MoQ embraces/creates Value.
> So if we make SOM the intellect of MoQ what changes in SAIOM that
> enlightens it to Value? Explain how all of a sudden SOM knows how to
> classify value where prior it did not!?
An additional point to Doug`s is that the the four static
levels of VALUE (inorganic/biological/social/intellectual)
are all a practical device in the form of static
intellectual patterns of value (or mind). While, in SOM,
subjects and objects are seen as THE representations of
reality (i.e. literal truths). I therefore can not see how
you can substitute SOM as a whole for intellectual value
patterns. The two terminologies seem very different; one
is provisional and accepts many truths (the MOQ), one
thinks it`s giving us THE ONE & ONLY truth (SOM). (Or should
the last line read "..THE ONE & ONLY YOU" as per THE
PLATTERS?). As Pirsig says in LILA the pencil (e.g. MOQ) is
mightier than the pen (e.g. SOM).
I can not therefore see how you can paste SOM within the
MOQ system. I`m sure Bodvar will have a number of things to
say about the above (and my previous questions) so I`ll
give him a chance to reply before rambling on any further.
-- post message - mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org unsubscribe/queries - mailto:email@example.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:06 CEST