From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Tue Nov 22 2005 - 10:15:18 GMT
Hi Mike (Horse and Mark mentioned in a PS)
21 Nov.
Me before:
> > I haven't bothered with Sam's eudaemonia idea either because it
> > looks superfluous to me. After all Pirsig gives a splendid and
> > convincing description of how the S/O split (the 4th level IMO)
> > emerged, developed and "came of age" in ZMM. What Sam adds to this I
> > never understood. But I'm willing to listen, please give me its gist
> > Mike.
> Mike:
> As I see it, the core argument is that the 4th level, as that which
> opposes the social level, must consist of individuals who are not
> completely bound by the dictates of society, i.e. autonomous
> individuals. This isn't rocket science, but simply by emphasising
> "autonomy" instead of "intellect" (whatever that word means), we can
> bring a whole host of high-quality creative activities, aspects of
> human flourishing, into the 4th level, where previously they might
> have been banished to the social level.
Thanks a lot, I had an inkling but never really understood why
Sam regarded this as something like the SOL. The autonomous
individual in the sense of a rebel against social mores isn't the
4th. level's value. Far from that. If "The Iliad" is a social level
document (as Pirsigs claims in ZMM) Achilles stood up as an
unruly element and rebelled against both the Greek society of the
homeland and the Troy society.
No, the true 4th. value level emerged when the Greek thinkers
started to question the myths of old - the "Gods behind
everything" reality - and this reality Achilles was totally steeped
in, he even claimed to be partly divine himself (Achilles is fiction,
but Homer - if he has lived - presented it this way). What you
(Mike) mean by ...."we can bring a whole host of high-quality
....etc." isn't clear. The problem has rather been that social level
people have been regarded as dim-witted brutes. But pease
elaborate.
> > Bo:
> > And if you in addition would explain the different S/O layers of
> > Scott I'll be even more grateful.
> Mike:
> Scott's explained it enough times that even I think I understand it,
> but okay. S[1] is Cartesian Mind and O[1] is Cartesian Matter. Perhaps
> a more descriptive label would be S/O[Descartes] or S/O[D] for short
> (no sniggering at the back of the class!)
> Well, okay, snigger away. I did.
(:- D !!!!!!
> I understand S[2] to refer to the autonomous intellect. It differs
> from Cartesian Mind, because the O[2] can either be from the realm of
> O[1], i.e. Matter, such as a rock, or it can be from the realm of
> S[1], such as a thought or an emotion. I believe that Socrates was
> suggesting that people should make use of their S[2] when he said that
> "the unexamined life is not worth living". This suggests that S/O[2]
> pre-dates S/O[D], indeed, it must have been Rene's S[2] that applied
> the method of doubt, which led him to S/O[D]. S[2] is the thing that
> does philosophy.
I appreciate this too, but Pirsig's position is that all S/O variants
we can dream up have their origin in Logos taking leave of
Mythos. The first manifestation - eternal principles in contrast to
mortal men - bears no resemblance, neither does the second
"truth vs opinion". Yes, even Plato's and Aristotle's has little S/O
content, but this is the foundation.
Scott's fallacy is that he refuses MOQ's meta-view that sees a
4th. level emerging from the 3rd. but sees all from (in moqish)
the 4th. and from there assumes its subjective stance, everything
is intellect (in the mind sense) according to him, and - phew - no
wonder there are different S/Os. There is the basic mind that
sees the mind/matter context, then the mind that sees the mind
that sees the mind/matter context, the .... etc. ad absurdum.
No, Scott brings nothing to our understanding, I finally dragged
his variety of the MOQ out of him and it appeared as SOM in the
"Us/Not Us" form.
Bo
PS
Regarding Horse's
> Having checked the general location via ip address I can prettty much
> confirm that Mark and Sid are not one and the same. Sid's location is
> further south than where Mark lives.
I politely doubt if it is possible to ascertain anyone's identity these
days. Besides I know Mark's style, this of 12 Nov from "Sid"
> The Black Knight wrote to Erin:
> >I guess you have understood that "Sid" is the well known split
> >personality "Squonkstail"-cum-Mark Maxwell who has
> >metamorphosed again, now into "Buddha", his muddled logic
> >always tells on him.
> Another mistake. I'm not, of course, Buddha, that's just a bit of fun. My
> name is Satish if you must know. I have to laugh at your denigration of
> my reasoning skills. Your logic has more flaws in it than the Empire
> State Building.
bears Mark's "mark", but never mind, he has found himself a
"mission", it does him lots of good and doesn't hurt me.
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 : Tue Nov 22 2005 - 12:39:43 GMT