Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates

From: Scott R (jse885@spinn.net)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 04:34:38 GMT

  • Next message: Scott R: "Re: MD Absolute Quality between ZMM and Lila"

    Sam,

    Well, if we agree on where we both want to end up, then I'll shift my
    argument to saying that I'm not overly concerned with how Pirsig uses the
    word 'intellect', but am concerned with what I consider to be the basic work
    of philosophy, namely *changing* the way we understand key words (as I
    discussed a while back with Erin about the word 'faith').

    So, in particular with the word 'intellect', this word has been devalued
    since the Enlightenment, and it is now time to revalue it. By the way, I
    also want to do the same with 'reason', which, I regret, Pirsig failed to
    include in his 'RT' derivatives (via 'ratio'). Coleridge made a distinction
    between 'understanding' and 'reason' to be the same as his famous
    distinction between 'fancy' and 'imagination'. To him, reason and
    imagination were pretty much the same thing, which seems to be much in line
    with Pirsig's comments on art and science in the fourth level (as Marco
    points out, quoting the SODAV paper).

    - Scott

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Elizaphanian" <Elizaphanian@members.v21.co.uk>
    To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
    Sent: Monday, November 11, 2002 1:19 AM
    Subject: Re: MD Sophocles not Socrates

    > Hi Scott,
    >
    > Thanks for the feedback, I do appreciate it.
    >
    > >
    > > Several times you (and others) characterize the intellectual level as
    > > "logical " and "rational". While not incorrect, this misses the
    > significance
    > > of the intellect in human evolution.
    >
    > This is central to what I'm saying. If we understand the intellect in a
    much
    > broader way (as Augustine does, for example - reason, memory and will,
    with
    > the corresponding virtues of faith, hope and love) then there is no longer
    > any problem - at that point, as Wim put it, I'm just 'bickering about
    > words'. It's just that Pirsig characterises the intellectual level in the
    > narrow way (he explicitly says we should use the dictionary definition),
    and
    > it is precisely this narrowness of definition that I am objecting to. So I
    > think we're actually in sympathy, aren't we?
    >
    > Do feel free to join in with my dialogue with DMB on mysticism by the way.
    I
    > think we'll be coming on to how to understand Logos and nous before too
    long
    > :-)
    >
    > 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
    >

    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 : Wed Nov 13 2002 - 04:36:27 GMT