hey david, this'll be short i promise:
>dmb:Oh, I see. You assert that there is overwhelming evidence, but then
>have to go looking for it once you're questioned about it. Shouldn't it be
>the other way around? Once again, when pressed for an anwere you take the
>lazy and cowardly way out. Why would you even be interested in a discussion
>forum like this?
Elliot:
well, its not unheard of atall to know evidence exsists, have heard it
before, develope ideas about it and then, when confronted in discussion
about it, have to go find it again, or find it in more reputable sources.
Infact, if i asked someone for evidence, id much prefer they go find it in
some sources rather than just give me examples from their head. and there
is no need on either side to question eachothers true interest in
intellectual exploration, we all need a little convincing of new ideas.
>DMB says:
To pretend I didn't already mention this (stonehenge) is dishonest. Yes,
calculations were involved in their construction and use. The ancient
Babylonian astronomer priests were very impressive too. But all this
intelligence was used for social and religious purposes. It was tied up in a
completey different worldview than is today's mathematicians.
Elliot:
I cut the qoute for space but you go on to make it more clear that you think
thinking is not intellectual, but the social framework or worldview which
thinking is done under. this cannot be the case. Matematics is
intellectual because it shows personal experience of Quality such as ratio
and other matematical beauties. read that last sentance again. it isnt
because matematicians today have a different world view where God is numbers
or reason rather than an unexplainable force of beauty, the pursuit of which
brings matematical stuctures that immitate the beauty of God, of Quality.
Todays matematicians and those of the past work for the same reason,
exploration of an inexpressible Beauty, Quality, todays matematicians just
have more experience and more precise tools.
>Gary said:
> > Pirsig is wrong.
>
>DMB says:
>If he invented the concept, you have no choice but to accept his
>definition. Otherwise you're claiming to know the contents of his mind
>better than he does, which is impossible. You can disbelieve it. You can
>try to understand exactly what it means. You can refuse to buy it. You can
>invent a concept of your own. You have lots of options, but you can't
>change the meaning of a concept he invented.
Elliot:
Heres why i define athority the way i do. You see, Pirsig wasnt talking
about just himself, he hoped to make a map that corisponded to ALL of our
experiences. If a group of us notice there is a more eloquent and
verifiable (and therefore more truthful) way of drawing the map, then we are
supposed to change it. Pirsig left us with the MoQ to let it grow and
change in our hands, not to think strictly within its bounds. We dont claim
to know Pirsigs own head better than himself, we claim to have better ideas
about human experience. following your logic, no one can ever be wrong.
There is a purple girraff reading this behind your shoulder. no, im not
wrong, you just need to understand what im saying better, not correct what i
said.
>
>DMB sums it up:
>I think part of the confusion about this issue stems from the fact that the
>brains we all have today are pretty much the same brains our ancestors had
>tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of years ago and they could
>certainly "think" in some sense of the word. But to equate this with modern
>scientific thinking, rationality and Pirsig's intellecual level misses the
>whole point of the MOQ. The social and intellectual levels are not produced
>by the brain, they're not features of biological man. They're each an
>entirely different level of reality, with an evolutionary path of their
>own.
>SOM sees all human thoughts as "intellectual", but that's only in the
>broadest sense of the word. I've even heard scientists describe the making
>of stone tools half a million years ago as intellectual activity. But
>that's a different sense of the word. Pirsig is talking about something
>very different from that. I thinks its a terrible mistake to refuse to
>understand what Pirsig's distinctions mean. If we do that, we only undo his
>work, in which case we might as well have never read Lila in the first
>place.
Elliot:
As human bodies evolved, the brain must have changed along with it, so i
dont except my brain is the same as that of someone whose bone structre and
other biological aspects were pretty different from mine.
I agree, its a terrible mistake for YOU to misunderstand what Pirsig is
talking about, or maybe to understand what Pirsig was talking about and
reject reformulations of it because Pirsig didnt make them. I dont claim to
know what Pirsigs head was like (but apparently you do), but i know the
implications of your ideas, and i see their logical reductions, and i say
they dont stand up. there isnt anyway to conclude this letter and say what
i want so ill wait for you to respond and say it then
elliot.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
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 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:19 BST