From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 17:19:57 BST
Bo,
--- 26 June Scott wrote:
--- > As I see it, the Vedantists worked within a general population whose
--- > consciousness gradually became S/O-like, same as with the Greeks. The
--- > Vedantists, however, were more quick to warn that the S/O divide was
--- > impermanent, so was not the basis of reality (not that there weren't
--- > such warners in the West, but their voice wasn't dominant). Hence they
--- > avoided turning the S/O divide into SOM. So intellect in the East was
--- > also mainly S/O, and the evidence for that is that the philosophers
--- > (and not all of them) felt the need to warn against it.
---
--- Thanks Scott, this is enough to affirm my hunch that the
--- mysterious "separate oriental intellect" is a hoax. There can as
--- little exist a non-S/O intellect as there can a non-biological
--- biology. Even the dictionaries define intellect as S/O, but my
--- pointing to it is like pouring water over a goose (as we say) There
--- must be something with the English-American mind that
--- "beatifies" intellect.
Paul: This has the all-too-familiar ring of question-begging dogmatic
bluster to it. I'm astounded at how a huge body of distinct cultural
evolution can be dismissed, in an ex cathedra manner, as a hoax.
There was nothing "mysterious" about my reference to eastern intellect
either, I provided excerpts from the Upanishads which contradict the
conclusion of the SOL, so why not read some of it and present it yourself in
support of your theory instead of relying on Scott's memory?
And your implication that being English somehow retards me from your special
insight seems like a particularly desperate move.
Also, running off to the dictionary is a fairly puerile way to resolve
philosophical disputes, don't you think?
--- For Paul who wrote:
---
--- > Also, I would add that recognising a distinction between subjects and
--- > objects is one thing, but talking about "objective knowledge" is
--- another.
--- > The eastern conception of "true knowledge," insofar as they recognise
--- such
--- > a thing, is something much more related to certain experiences than to
--- > logical constructions.
---
--- Yes, that's the point, the Orientals did not make the S/O
--- awareness into a metaphysics but it was not "intellect" that
--- expanded into a quality-like awareness, rather their outlook. Their
--- intellectual level remains the S/O and so will the Occidental
--- intellect when the MOQ expands OUR outlook.
Paul: More unsupported ad-hoc announcements.
And do tell us more about this mysterious "outlook" that you see fit to
distinguish from intellect. This suddenly seems to carry a lot of
metaphysical weight in the SOL; I think we ought to know a little more about
it, Bo. Is it the "rebel pattern" in disguise? The revenge of the 5th
level?
---
--- > Finally, Bo, to my knowledge you have never answered my claim that SOL
--- > rests on faulty reasoning - i.e. "the first intellectual patterns were
--- > based on the S/O distinction, therefore all intellectual patterns are
--- > based on the S/O distinction." There are enough intellectual patterns
--- > (see e.g. Matt's recent list) that aren't based on SOM to demonstrate
--- that
--- > there must be something more elementary to intellect. So saying that
--- > "because intellectual patterns emerged with the S/O distinction of the
--- > Greeks, all intellectual patterns must have the S/O distinction" is
--- like
--- > saying that "because life emerged with viruses, all forms of life are
--- > viruses."
---
--- The last metaphor was a poor one, I would rather say: Because
--- life started with reproduction, all forms of life must reproduce.
Paul: I would rather stick with my question. The fallacy I am questioning
is -- why must the first form of a pattern be the definition of a level?
Reproduction is the mechanism of life, not a form of it. Why is SOM the
mechanism of intellect and not a form?
--- "Enough intellectual patterns" and "Matt's list."? Please give me
--- one or two examples from it.
Paul: You could just read the post again, it was only a couple of days ago.
But here you go:
"Rorty (Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature), Jeffery Stout (The Flight from
Authority), Stephen Toulmin (Cosmopolis), Richard Bernstein (Beyond
Objectivism and Relativism), Bernard Yack (The Longing for Total
Revolution), and Susan Neiman (Evil in Modern Thought), to name a few. One
of Sam's favorites, in addition to Toulmin, is Alasdair MacIntyre (After
Virtue). One of DMB's favorites is Ken Wilber. And there are more: Jurgen
Habermas (The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity), Michel Foucault (The
Order of Things), Jacques Derrida (Of Grammatology). And some older ones:
Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil), Heidegger (Being and Time), Dewey (The
Quest for Certainty)."
Matt wrote:
--- > All this rather than Bo's
--- > obscure "SOL-MoQ is Reality and when I argue about the Sum Total of
--- > Reality I'm forwarding an opinion about it." I'm not sure I fully
--- > understand how Bo gets around the subjectivism that he finds so
--- abhorent
--- > in the standard account's apparent description when, as far as I can
--- > tell, an opinion would have to be in Bo's mind, as opposed to matter,
--- > whereas for us, the horribleness of this realization is defused.
Bo retreated:
--- I see that you are in a panic to distance yourself from me. A great
--- pity, but who am I to stop you.
Paul: Nice try, Bo. Try answering some of Matt's questions instead.
Speaking of unanswered questions, I'm still waiting for a response to this:
To think that Pirsig is saying that these beliefs are more than what are the
most valuable to have is to think that he is saying, like 'the Chairman',
that they are "The Truth," the Reality behind the Appearances (of e.g. SOM).
This demonstrates that one is still in thrall to the appearance/reality
distinction - the common denominator to all SOM patterns - which,
ironically, by your own definition, means that your argument is more
entrenched in intellect than any.
Regards
Paul
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 17:24:55 BST