From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jul 04 2003 - 16:43:31 BST
On 3 Jul 2003 at 16:48, SQUONKSTAIL@aol.com wrote:
in a reply to what I had written:
> > Lila page 261 (Bantam Press. Hardcover):
> > "Phaedrus remembered now that it had bothered him a little that in the
> > Odyssey, Homer seemed at times to be equating quality with celebrity .
> > Perhaps in Homer's time, when evolution had not yet transcended the
> > social level into the intellectual, the two were the same.
> > I need not write in bold or capital letters for such a great linguist
> > as yourself to understand? Homer was Greek and experts believe him to
> > have lived a thousand years BC and Pirsig says that evolution had NOT
> > YET ...etc Celebrity - a social value - was regarded as the highest
> > good. Another few centuries and the transition took place.
> sq: If we substitute 'rose above' for 'transcended' there is no
> problem. My dictionary defines transcend as 'rise above' or 'superior
> to.' At a point where they are the same, no level is above or superior
> to the other. This does not conflict with anything i have said. I am
> shocked to observe how euphoric you have become. You are a spooky man.
No problem? You are on very thin ice here. The later value is always
above/superior to the former. And why suddenly substitute anything, you
who otherwise are such a "fundamentalist"? And does "rose above" change
anything?
Still, haven't you misread the passage? Pirsig says that celebrity and quality
were identical, not society and intellect, but anyway, if you mean that intellect
has its root in the social level and served its parent before it "...went off on a
purpose of its own". Right, but it is "its own purpose" which is intellect's
value.
Another thing: Pirsig says something about the uselessness of going
beyond dictionary definitions. OK the definition of intellect in my dictionary is:
"Power of the mind to reason (contrasted to feeling and instinct) ..."
Somewhere you stated that the S/O definition merely covers reason, but that
IS the dictionary definition! It also fits nicely with the "intellect vs society"
struggle. " by ....contrasted to feeling and instinct", but let that rest.
The dictionary definition of INTELLIGENCE however seems to fit the mind-
intellect interpretation. "Power of perceiving, learning, understanding and
knowing: Mental ability." This is something basic and has its origin in biology
...even in "inorgany" as Jonathan hinted to, but then we have a Metaphysics
of Intelligence.
To me you are social-focussed person, " ...full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing" (Shakespeare). You despise me (probably hate), emotions are your
motivation. You subserviently admire Pirsig and see questioning minor
points (compared to the main postulates) as slandering his name, and that
your "cause" is to defend his reputation. All good old social virtues and I
don't blame you. Also if you - about the LILA passage above - had admitted
that Pirsig ALSO has said this ...fine, but your feeble "explanation". Well, be
my guest, it's fun seeing you make a fool of yourself.
About "Horse". His name is to be found on his homepage so no excuse.
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 : Fri Jul 04 2003 - 16:49:46 BST