From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 03 2005 - 11:40:58 BST
Hi Bo,
>> Bo - I have been listening, just not speaking (for once). But my two
>> pennies herewith.
>
> We have begun to show signs of wear, at least this old guy.
Me too. Attrition wears everything down in the end. Probably time for me to
take another break soon.
>> 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).
>
> OK, intellect's initiation may be independent judgment. It's for all
> practicality identical to the independent subject (conscious of an
> objective world) The gist of it all is the subject/object distinction
Not quite, I don't think. But I agree they are close.
> I see Pirsig's presentation of SOM's emergence (ZMM) as most
> convincing and penetrating, so why seek for other explanations?
I'm not sure I do disagree with ZMM. I do disagree with your take on ZMM
though (tho' not by much).
>> 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.
>
> SOM not intellectual at all? Well, then you are pretty far off.
I see SOM as linked to the intellectual in the same way that a field of corn
is linked to the social. It's produced by the social, it's governed by the
social, but in itself it's a biological pattern. As I see all language as
necessarily social (and SOM is language) I think it's social, to that
degree. Put differently, that which is 'above' SOM is (an) intellect, not
'intellect as such' - where I agree with you that it is simply a reification
of classic SOM understandings of 'mind'.
>> 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.
>
> No substantial disagreement, but in terms of substantive
> understanding vast disagreement?
Yes. I think level 4 is built up out of virtue/eudaimonic values. You think
it's built up out of SOM. So I agree with your criticisms of Pirsig's
account of 'intellect', but I disagree with what you're putting in its
place. Does that make sense?
> I see, this wasn't meant to be answered.
Don't understand that. My point was that Ian would be in a better position
to talk with you about these things because he doesn't have all the
'eudaimonic' or religious baggage which you take exception to. I'm just
trying not to get in the way (difficult, bit of a change of habit for me).
Sam
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 : Sat Sep 03 2005 - 11:46:24 BST