From: David M (davidint@blueyonder.co.uk)
Date: Mon Oct 24 2005 - 18:40:43 BST
Richard Tarnas on Grof & Barfield in his book on Western thought
called the Passion of the West that looks at the rise and fall of SOM
Bo should give it a read:
"The organising principles of this epistemology (Grof's) are symbolic,
nonliteral and radically multivalent in character, suggesting a nondualistic
ontology that is metaphorically patterned 'all the way down' -an
understanding
developed in recent decades by thinkers as diverse as Owen Barfield, Norman
O
Brown, James Hillman, and Robert Bellah."
Bo, your claims of exclusivity for Pirsig are just plain silly.
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: <skutvik@online.no>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 4:28 PM
Subject: Re: MD The SOL fallacy was the intelligence fallacy (was Rhetoric)
> Scott
>
> 21 Oct. you wrote to Gav
>
>> The problem is: what do you mean by "intellect per se"? And how is
>> intelligence different from that? The Greek word for that highest
>> level you refer to was 'nous', and the Latin equivalent was
>> 'intellectus'.
>
> The Greek word! No wonder. The Greeks were the first SOMists
> (or intellectual-ists in a MOQ context) and this is the way intellect
> likes to present itself: A mind that thinks while it really is the
> mind/matter divide itself.
>
>> One could translate it as 'intelligence' or as
>> 'intellect', but I'm not sure what the difference is.
>
> Can't you see that you are caught in the mind-idea world of the
> Greeks and that the MOQ is the first ever break-out from that
> confinement? And that Pirsig will not think like Barfield or Dewey
> or what names you have dropped since you began. I am however
> pleased that you and Mr. Maxwell have "found each other".
>
>> However, what I
>> object to is the characterization "beyond rational comprehension". It
>> certainly is "beyond rational comprehension", but that is because
>> reason is beyond rational comprehension. The word 'comprehension' (or
>> 'understanding') is, in much philosophy, used to refer to a lower
>> level of reason or intellect, where the higher level is that which
>> creates that which is subsequently understood or comprehended (like
>> differentiating between SQ and DQ). So my objection is that to speak
>> of being 'beyond rational comprehension', while true, has the tendency
>> to imply 'beyond reason', but the highest level is not 'beyond
>> reason', since it is reason. (Just to confuse things further, some
>> philosophers, like Cusa, use 'reason' for the lower level, and
>> 'intellect' for the upper, and some (e.g., Coleridge) reverse this,
>> but one just has to deal with that.)
>
> MOQ's 4th static level is S/O-reason, but not thinking because
> 3rd. level people arrived at (still does) totally different results
> from the same data. Nor is it intelligence because 3rd. level
> people were just as smart as we are and did marvellous things in
> many fields.
>
> 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
>
>
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 : Mon Oct 24 2005 - 19:01:01 BST