Hi, MoQers !
Mary Wittler wrote:
> Greetings Denis! Welcome to MOQ Discuss. I may be mistaken, but I
> believe you are the first member from France.
Thanks for the kind words, Mary. Actually, I don't think many people
have read Pirsig in France. It never was the hit it has been in the US.
Still, ZMM has been translated and a few people (the interesting ones
;)) have read it. I've been toying with the idea of translating 'Lila'
and proposing it to RMP, but I really don't have the time now... Perhaps
next year during my turn in the army...
(...)
> I think a lot of confusion arises from equating the intellectual level
> with thought itself. As you pointed out, Pirsig doesn't explain the
> intellectual level as much as we would like. However, Bodvar Skutvik
> (lately only in the LS) has proposed that the intellectual level can be
> thought of as subject/object logic - not thought itself, but a
> particular kind of thought that has pervaded Western thinking at least
> since Descartes. Prior to the Enlightenment, it can be argued that we
> did not possess subject/object logic. Pirsig, of course, places the
> advent of the intellectual level much later than that. According to
> him, the intellectual level didn't arise until the end of the Victorian
> era. Well, since we obviously did *think* before then, then he must
> mean that the intellectual level is something beyond plain thought.
>
> Interesting to think about anyway...;)
It sure is, but Pirsig only states that the intellectual level became
_dominant_ in the early 20th century, not that it didn't exist before.
If it didn't, then what about that rant about Plato and Aristotle in the
last chapters of ZMM ? According to Pirsig, they threw the very
foundations of western thought, 500 years before Christ !
Anyway, you must admit, that would be a very western-centered pov, no ?
If *we* didn't really think before Descartes found the trick (well, he
was French, so perhaps that's right after all...), then what chance had
those poor foreign buggers of being anything more than social animals...
Until we taught them how to, that is... ;)
I'm actually reading 'the Tao of Physics' by F. Capra, and in the first
chapters Capra states that while some schools of Buddhism (notably Zen)
do not trust logic and reason to explain or describe enlightenment, some
others are very intellectual in nature (As the story of RMP shows, you
*can* use logic to defeat SOM and reach some new levels of awareness.).
As for the idea of SOLAQI (Bodvar Inc.), I've been lurking on you all
for almost 8 weeks now, so I know about it and agree with him. Well,
actually I think I do agree, but since I've never seen the original post
in which it was explained, I have to agree with the second-hand
information I've picked on other posts. (BTW, if somebody wants to
forward that post for me, well, you've got a free lunch waiting for you
next time you come to Paris... Honest !)
I'll expound on that in my first post to the LilaSquad (*if* I manage to
get that #$/§@#~$@ mailing message right, that is), since I guess I may
have a few arguments that support his views, namely that a S/O mind is
necessary for any kind of evolution to take place in the intellectual
level.
But that will have to wait for now. See you all
Denis
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST