From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Sun Sep 11 2005 - 16:19:17 BST
Paul and Apostles
9 Sep. you wrote:
Me earlier:
> >Paul Turner and I once discussed this, my view is that intellectual
> >patterns are S/O wherever, and I think he arrived at the same
> >conclusion (grudgingly ;)
> Paul: I'm afraid I didn't conclude that all intellectual patterns are
> S/O based. A cursory examination of the Upanishads, in which entire
> chapters are devoted to denying any inherent duality such as S/O,
> shows this to be the case.
I don't get this: Pirsig says that the Orientals developed
an intellectual level independently of the Greeks, something that
(at least) means that he sees the Greeks developing intellect, and
that this is the SOM described in ZMM I take for granted. No
small thing after all these years!
Now, Pirsig's point is seemingly to refute some argument about
the Oriental cultures not being intellectual. This isn't mine and I
can't figure out its rationale except as a straw one to refute my
my SOL thesis as the "independent intellectual LEVEL" indicates
a non-S/O intellect.
But the letter leaves us none the wiser, if the essence of the said
Upanishads philosophy is contained in the excerpts below it looks
more like distancing taking leave of SOM dualisms than realizing
it. In other words that the Oriental intellect is a Quality-like one.
This however skips the SOM totally and that can't be, SOM is its
chief opponent.
> "The universe of duality which is cognized is mere illusion (maya);
> Non-duality alone is the Supreme Reality." [Mandukya Upanishad, VI,
> 17]
> "On account of the incomprehensible nature of Atman, the scriptural
> passage "Not this, not this" negates all dualistic ideas attributed to
> Atman. Therefore the birthless Atman alone exists." [Chapter III -
> Adavaita Prakarana, 26]
> However, what the eastern Upanishads and the ancient Greeks do have in
> common is that they are both logocentric (although there are parts of
> the Upanishads which lend themselves to a 'non-centric' Nagarjunian
> reading).
> By 'logocentric' I mean:
> "[E]very notion of an 'absolute' as Origin, as End, as Center, as
> Circumference; or even paradoxical variations of these, such as God as
> Center and Circumference, the absolute as presence and absence, and so
> on; in short, every 'sense' of an absolute as the 'frame' which
> contains or accounts for 'everything else', be the latter taken as
> real, illusory, or whatever, is for Derrida logocentric. In this
> regard, to say God is ineffable, for example, is for the Derridean
> simply to formulate and identity which is declared 'beyond naming',
> and which, by this very declaration, is ironically 'reified' in a
> philosophical sense, or, if you will, 'focused'." [Magliola, Derrida
> on the Mend, p.89-90]
>
> This definition covers Taoism, some Buddhism, including Zen, and
> arguably the MOQ*. As such, this would be a better candidate for the
> intellectual level but, in my opinion, still inadequate because at a
> minimum it fails to account for Nagarjunian Buddhism and, arguably the
> MOQ*, which are most definitely intellectual in the dictionary sense
> of the word, which as you say, Pirsig endorses.
Here you also say that the Upanishads philosophy is more like
the MOQ itself - or the Zen aspect of it - and it frustrates me that
Pirsig as an "oriental" Zen master sees that the MOQ as
something beyond intellect, but as a philosopher he turns the
idealist who see everything as intellect.
> As I've said before, to me, intellectual patterns are webs or networks
> of interrelated general propositions, the quality (justification,
> truth) of which is (or fights to be) independent of the social quality
> (status, authority, wealth etc.), of whoever holds them. Hence, the
> 'independent' rules of the intellectual level e.g. logical inference,
> arithmetic, axioms, scientific methodology.
Why is it that LILA - when giving examples of intellectual patterns
- comes up with democracy, trial by jury, free press and speech,
human rights ..etc. all clearly emanating from the independent
subject while having no conceivable connection with the
"manipulation of symbols" and/or your own "webs of interrelated
general propositions...etc". When the ancient pre-intellect
Egyptians for instance said that King Tut-Ank-Ahmon was a God
it surely was a general proposition, but not intellectual. The same
goes for their calculations in constructing the pyramid.
It seems like avoiding the SOL now has become a purpose of its
own around this place.
Bo
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 : Sun Sep 11 2005 - 19:38:00 BST