Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)

From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 20:51:09 BST

  • Next message: gav: "Re: MD bullshit"

    > Scott:
     All through ZMM and Lila is the
    > presumption that intellect takes one away from DQ (e.g., the hot stove
    > example).

    DM: I think you are wrong and that you disagree with a Pirsig of your own
    making.
    The equal ontological status of all the levels goes against this, there is
    however a sense in which SQ does allow you to ignore DQ, and above all
    SOM as one possible intellectual form of SQ is particularly good at blocking
    out DQ, where SOM is sort of fixed on the SQ pole. You know this,
    and I think Pirsig does too, the pushing aside all SOM to get back to
    seeing DQ is just a necessary step. Then we come back and see all SQ
    in relationship with DQ and the creative-active-erotic aspect of DQ
    is -just look at what has been achieved out of nothing- is of course
    also intelligent in a non human form.

    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 -

    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 Oct 20 2005 - 08:15:59 BST

    link
    > together the sense that we shouldn't devalue the life of a non-thinker
    > (the
    > romantic person from ZMM) with the dissolution of the historical
    > philosophical problems of S/O, free will, substance, etc.

    DM: I agree with you and Scott that Pirsig is a bit suspicious of any
    thought,
    and we can get our thoughts in better shape, but then again all SQ does
    cover up the DQ, unless you are getting your SQ firmly in its DQ context.
    A world of change with a bit of order.

     If there is a further direction to this
    > conversation, it'll have to be about what _we_ consider SOM to be (not
    > _just_ what Pirsig considers it, though obviously it'll travel through
    > there
    > considerably), what we consider the impetus to philosophize to be, what
    > problems we consider ourselves to be solving.

    DM: I agree that there is a lot of ideas about understanding and
    recontextualising
    SOM in philosophy we could use: Bergson, Schelling, Hegel, Heidegger,
    Richard
    Tarnas, Merleau-Ponty, Rorty, Derrida, Levinas, etc.

    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 -

    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 Oct 20 2005 - 08:07:07 BST