Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates

From: Elizaphanian (Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk)
Date: Sun Nov 03 2002 - 10:20:24 GMT

  • Next message: Elizaphanian: "Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates"

    Hi David,

    Good to have you back!

    I'll take on board some of the points you raise when I make a 'final'
    presentation of my argument, in a post to come. But in the meantime, two
    minor comments:

    > DMB says:
    > This quote re-states the point Erin and I are trying to make, but it also
    > addresses some of Sam's objections to the intellectual level. Pirsig too,
    > dislikes the idea of a "disembodied intellect". He addresses the issue of
    > what it is that is capable of quality apprehension; namely the whole
    > collection of patterns that constitute the self. This includes the
    emotional
    > self. In fact, it preceeds the intellect and the intellect couldn't exist
    > without, as understood by mainstream psychology and the MOQ. As far as I
    can
    > tell, most of your objections would disappear with a closer look at the
    MOQ.
    > I mean, it seems Pirsig complains about many of the same things you've
    been
    > pondering.

    No one would be happier than me if it can be shown that Pirsig's account
    already covers my concerns. My own view is that there is a tension embedded
    in Lila that needs to be teased out. I think sometimes Pirsig says something
    supporting my points, sometimes he says something going against it.
    (Possibly the difference between 'Pirsig' and 'Phaedrus'?) Either I haven't
    fully absorbed his position or there is a contradiction there. What I'm
    trying to do is fully articulate what I perceive to be the contradiction; if
    someone can show me that there isn't one - excellent! This was why I wanted
    to write my 'standard' account of the MoQ, because that is the construction
    that I will eventually take issue with. On which topic:

    dMB says:
    The 21st century has arrived and so far its alot like the 20th century, only
    faster. I know, you're just speculating about the future, but I have to take
    issue anyway. It closely resembles the piture Pirsig paints of our recent
    history, but I think its off in a couple of important ways.

    You depict the 20th century as "a struggle between social patterns of value
    with differing degrees of intellectual control". Oh, so close. Pirsig
    dipicts it as a struggle between third and fourth level, but you seem to
    want to fudge this with a clash between differing social patterns....

    Sam says:
    You've picked out an area where I disagree with the standard account, and
    where I inadvertently incorporated my understanding into what was intended
    as a neutral description. As I want to outline the standard account, not
    mine, I'll adjust the text. At least you do say it 'closely resembles the
    picture Pirsig paints'... :o)

    Sam
    www.elizaphanian.v-2-1.net/home.html

    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 2.1.5 : Sun Nov 03 2002 - 10:17:22 GMT