RE: MD Clearing up this intellectual mess

From: Matt Kundert (pirsigaffliction@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Jun 28 2005 - 12:48:52 BST

  • Next message: Paul Turner: "RE: MD The Phantom Menace"

    Bo,

    I just wanted to pop this off quick before I get to the more nitty-gritty.

    Bo said:
    OK, intellect's "objective over subjective" half can relatively easily be
    undermined by your "subjective over objective" counter-arguments (as well as
    the other way round) but don't you realize that the last one is intellect
    too?????? The greatest misunderstanding is that that the MOQ has an affinity
    for the subjective aspect of SOM.

    Matt:
    Ok. We apparently do not understand each other, though I think more
    accurately, you don't understand me (or Paul).

    _You_ are keeping the subject/object distinction.

    _I_ am not.

    (I know you'll read that as fast as you want, but I typed it slow just in
    case you could sense that.)

    That's important. You think you understand this, but I don't think you
    understand the consequences. Because you want to argue that the
    subject/object distinction is terribly important, and most of everybody else
    wants to follow Pirsig (who, I will argue in another post, does not think
    the _mind_/_matter_ dualism is that important) in thinking that we can get
    rid of it, you have to realize that we are _not_ going to take your
    responses as self-evident. My arguments are _not_ "subjective over
    objective" counter-arguments. They are intent on _eliminating_ the
    contrast, which doesn't seem like a possibility that's occured to you
    (despite Pirsig pointing this out in ZMM). If I _eliminate_ the contrast,
    then we don't get to use _either_ side to characterize what comes out. Its
    gone, eliminated--that was the point. Now, if you want to argue that my, or
    anyone else's, arguments are sub-over-ob, you are going to have to do a lot
    more work at establishing that because _I_ don't think they are. As long as
    _I_ don't think they are, you have more work to do in trying to get our
    understandings together. I have seen nothing in your expositions to help me
    understand why I should think either _I'm_ a subjectivist or that the
    subject-object distinction is inescapable (which is probably what you're
    gonna' want to argue).

    Matt said:
    By the way, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that the
    Greeks didn't have a distinction between (something like) subjective belief
    and (something like) objective knowledge. What was the distinction between
    opinio and episteme then?

    Bo said:
    I don't have ZMM here, but it says something to the effect "..until that
    moment there had been no subject/object, no mind/matter ..etc. He might have
    added ..no opinion/episteme dualism .

    I may add. The pre-SOM ancients surely knew truth from lies, but the
    opinion/knowledge dichotomy is part of the newfangled awareness ...the
    Western at least.

    Matt:
    This is almost cute. Bo, weren't you the one recently who kept blasting
    everybody for adhereing to the letter of Pirsig too much?

    That being said, I must point out that Pirsig is not a scholar. That
    doesn't mean that a lot of what he says is not broadly true. Or in detail
    true. But if you want to push the detail part, you're gonna' have to do
    your own research.

    Now, I'm not positive about this---I haven't done exhaustive research---but
    I don't think Socrates created the opinio/episteme distinction. I'm pretty
    sure he took advantage of it, not created it.

    But, barring that (because I do think the opinio/episteme distinction was
    created at some point), I think it is a horrible, horrible mistake to
    continue conflating the mind/matter distinction with the opinio/episteme
    distinction. The two are not related as close as you think (I don't even
    think Pirsig thinks they're as closely related as you think, but again,
    that's for the other post).

    Bo said:
    The whole point in ZMM is that Socrates-Plato-Aristotles were the end of a
    several-century development. Need we start arguing about THIS?

    Matt:
    No, we don't. I just think you are making very sloppy claims on behalf of
    some true things. I think you need to tighten up your presentation. If you
    did this, I think you might realize a few of the extraordinary claims you're
    making and how far you're actually diverging from Pirsig, instead of the
    pretend places.

    Matt

    _________________________________________________________________
    FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
    http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

    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 : Tue Jun 28 2005 - 12:54:44 BST