DMB,DMB... oh fast typ'n, rhetoric spew'n....
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.
3WD
No, when you ask for evidence I assumed you were not asking for my
opinion but other sources which you can or could verify quickly. But
you know that, and you know history probably better than I do, and you
know that Pirsig at bear minimum places intellectual values as emerging
prior to Socrates. But keep trying to say no, no, this is not "real"
intellect its something else because this type was used for "social and
religious purposes", even though you are well aware that Pirsig said:
Pirsig
"The intellect's evolutionary purpose has never been to discover an
ultimate meaning of the universe. That is a relatively recent fad. Its
historical purpose has been to help a society find food, detect danger,
and defeat enemies. ... "
Unfortunately you still haven't progressed beyond the high school
debate mode of "once you have establish your position defend it by any
method" to win, and "sand in the bulls eyes" or "blowing smoke up his
***" counts. You're good at it, but you are not advancing your position
because this is real life, and in real life BS is just that. But using
the same methods you continue:
DMB
> 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.
And then go right on and do what you claim (wrongly) that I did:
> DMB says:
> Yes, everything has "some type of internal PoV". But the purpose here is to
> make distinctions between various KIND of internal points of view, different
> kinds of consciousness. I imagine Pirsig would say, "Yes, the most
> intelligent animals have an internal ability and can therefore be considered
> to have some kind consciousness, but that's just not what I mean by social
> level thinking."
3WD
Rhetorically I could asked,
Would you please give me a Pirsig quote where he says that "everything
has some type of internal" point of view ?
But we both know you won't find it. He has in numerous places said the
"self" or "subject" or "mind" or "subjective" or whatever terms like
these you like are strictly human social and intellectual patterns of
value. This is Wilber stuff. I know it, you not it. It's not Pirsig.
Or continuing, rhetorically ask:
What is this "social level thinking"/"intellectual level thinking" I
remember Pirig talking a lot about "social patterns of value/
intellectural patterns of value" but I don't recall him using these
phases very often, if at all. Could you provide the page numbers,
quotes, and context for the use of these phrases ?
DMB
> 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.
3WD
Or ask:
How is that Pirsig uses the common everyday definition of "inorganic",
"biological", and "social" but when he talks about "intellect" you say
he "is talking about something very different" than a everyday definition?
But I don't have to, because these are all primarily your creations,
your concepts, to make a point which at the end of the day (which it is
here) are in direct conflict with quotes he did make, and the MoQ in
general. But you know that too.
Nice swapping rhetoric with you.
3WD
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