From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Sep 01 2005 - 12:27:13 BST
Hi Bo, Ian, all,
Bo - I have been listening, just not speaking (for once). But my two pennies
herewith.
> Our Western world view came pass as told in ZMM, thus all (our)
> philosophy has been a deepening of it, footnotes to Plato and
> Aristotles so to say. Along comes this nineteen-fifties Montana
> teacher who (after the Quality Insight) sees the above context:
> SOM having displaced the pre-existing Aretê World (Quality).
> Phaedrus begins on a new metaphysics (to displace the SOM)
> within which Intellect=SOM. Then LILA wherein the new
> metaphysics is completed, but now tragedy hits. He has backed
> down from the original insight that intellect is the (value of) SOM
> and presents intellect as the traditional mental realm (SOM's
> mind) and by retaining this made a mess of the the wonderfully
> simple MOQ ... a mess that Pirsig in letters and annotations has
> tried repair, but only managed to deepen further. Had he followed
> his initial hunch the future would have been footnotes to Pirsig.
> To have it all in his hand and let it slip away. Phew!
The only bit I really quibble with that is the transition from your
interpretation of ZMM to what happens in Lila. That is, your view (so far as
I understand it) is that level 4 of the MoQ is SOM. That is, level 4 *in
toto* is SOM; the value of SOM; the evolutionary leap forward that SOM
represents.
My view is that SOM is *one of* the first fruits of the development of
independent judgement (ie a judgement that isn't determined by the social
patterns).
I think the 'first fruit' of the intellect was the development of tragic
theatre in ancient Greece. I see the philosophical reflection on the issues
arising from those tragedies (eg Plato) as later developments.
I therefore don't identify the fourth level with SOM. I think there are lots
of other ways of defining intellect (even non-controversial ways). And I see
the distinguishing characteristics of level 4 differently, as people are
well aware.
In terms of your negative criticisms of the present understanding of level 4
(manipulation of symbols etc) I have no substantial disagreements.
However, in terms of the substantive understanding of level 4, I think our
disagreements are vast, and tie in with different perceptions of the
religious and emotions etc. On which topics, frankly, I'm bored of the
points I've made so often. Which is most of the reason for my silence on
this question.
I think Ian is (roughly) in the same area as me, and as he isn't carrying
any of the religious baggage to distract, I'm hoping that you and he can
have a fruitful conversation.
I just hope he can convince you that there is more to intellect than SOM
(without undermining the point that "The top level of the MoQ IS the MoQ").
He's certainly better qualified to make that point than I am.
Regards
Sam
"I don't want them to believe me, I just want them to think." - Marshall
McLuhan
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 : Thu Sep 01 2005 - 13:57:17 BST