From: Paul Turner (paul@turnerbc.co.uk)
Date: Fri Jul 08 2005 - 16:25:38 BST
Bo, Matt,
--- 1)
--- The Greek cultural upheaval marks the emergence of what - in
--- MOQ - is called the intellectual level.
---
--- 2)
--- This upheaval is in ZMM described as the emergence of the
--- Subject/Object Metaphysics (SOM).
---
--- 3)
--- Thus when we speak about MOQ's intellectual level we speak
--- about SOM.
---
--- 4)
--- The MOQ rejects the SOM which means both its subjective and
--- objective aspect.
---
--- (A 5th point may be that after the COMPLETE rejection, the
--- MOQ no longer is part of its own intellectual level, but it follows
--- more or less naturally)
---
--- At least one of these points must be faulty to break my logic
--- which concludes that the incomplete rejection of the SOM
--- (leaving its subjective half unscathed) is behind the resistance to
--- seeing that the SOL is the MOQ.
---
--- ******************
---
--- If Paul responds he will possibly zoom in on # 1 and repeat that
--- the (western) intellectual level starting with the Greeks doesn't
--- provide a definition of it
Paul: No, that statement of mine is about (2) to (3) being a non sequitur.
See below.
--- Pirsig says:
--- > Just when the evolution of the intellectual level from the social
--- level
--- > took place in history can only be speculated on (.....). But if one
--- > studies the early books of the Bible or if one studies the sayings of
--- > primitive tribes today, the intellectual level is conspicuously
--- absent.
--- > The world is ruled by Gods who follow social and biological patterns
--- and
--- > nothing else.
Paul: Nice editing Bo. The full quote is
"Just when the evolution of the intellectual level from the social level
took place in history can only be speculated on. I certainly wasn't there
when it happened. Julian Jaynes', "The Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind," has impressed me, but other speculation
seems valid. Solon, the Athenian lawgiver, could be the pivotal point. Maybe
Solomon. Maybe the early Greek philosophers. Who knows? But if one studies
the early books of the Bible or if one studies the sayings of primitive
tribes today, the intellectual level is conspicuously absent. The world is
ruled by Gods who follow social and biological patterns and nothing else."
Was Solon a subject-object metaphysician? Solomon?
Anyway, this is not really the point. You have to prove that SOM is the
'mechanism' of intellect and not just the first species of it. You keep
assuming that all you have to do is demonstrate that Plato et al marked the
evolution of the intellectual level from the social level. Well, you know
what, as far as this discussion goes, job done. But this isn't enough. As
I've asked you before, why is SOM the intellectual equivalent of DNA and not
analogous to a virus as I, and others, contend?
--- See he doesn't speak of any western intellect ... or western
--- society for that matter.
Paul: That's because I asked him about the evolution of western intellect -
therefore there was no need to distinguish throughout the reply. Besides
which, in the same letter, he says that
"the Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level independently of the
Greeks during the Upanishadic period of India at about 1000 to 600 B.C."
So I think it is clear that there are at least two broadly distinguishable
species of intellectual patterns -- eastern and western. In the past you
have tried to ignore the implications of this but have recently announced
that Upanishadic thought is "just another form of SOM" but I am willing to
take you on with respect to this claim and I don't accept your use of a
paragraph from Scott that "confirms a hunch of yours" as an earnest
engagement of this crucial issue.
--- In the same letter Pirsig also says:
--- > From a philosophic idealist viewpoint there is nothing but intellect.
--- > From a Zen viewpoint it is a part of the world of everyday affairs
--- that
--- > one leaves behind upon becoming enlightened and then rediscovers from
--- a
--- > Buddha's point of view
---
--- This is what I have been saying: To you (Matt and Paul) there is
--- nothing but intellect. Everything - including the MOQ itself - are
--- intellectual ideas.
Paul: This implied reductionism (i.e. "nothing but") is off the mark. It
is the false conclusion you arrive at by starting with your "metaphysics =
reality" premise which I think sounds pretty much the same as an idealist
premise i.e. where systems of thought are "reality itself."
Anyway, I've tried and failed to progress this conversation before, so, if
you wish, I'm more than happy to sit back and see if Matt can do a better
job.
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 : Fri Jul 08 2005 - 21:56:04 BST