From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Sep 08 2003 - 07:14:40 BST
DMB and Group (Scott and Paul mentioned)
6 Sep. you wrote:
> dmb says:
> Its not alienation. Really. I just don't think SOLAQI works and I've
> got much less time for MOQing these days.
> Hugs and kisses,
Thanks David, but may I raise "Titanic" again by returning to the
mythological past that you and I (at least) agreed aligns well with the
social level of the MOQ.
Compare this to the description of the emergence of SOM from the
very same past (ZMM page 365.Corgi paperback)
"One must first get over the idea that the time span between the last
caveman and the first Greek philosophers was short ....etc." ending
with this passage: "What is essential to understand is that until now
there was no such thing as mind and matter, SUBJECT AND
OBJECT, form and substance."
If this doesn't make the S/O divide identical with Q-intellect something
lacks in my logic, and after doing this harmonization Socrates and his
followers become representatives of the emerging intellectual level,
while their antagonists, the Sophists, stand for the former value level -
society - something that explain another Pirsig "riddle", namely his
anti-intellectual tendencies that the critics saw in LILA. I need not
repeat the "my enemy's enemy, my friend" mechanism.
Back to the ZMM/LILA superimposition. Everything points to the
SOLAQI interpretation, God, if there is anything that supports it it's
this: The TRUTH (objectivity) as opposed to subjective OPINION (that
the Sophist stood for were at that time a fragile thing and Socrates
fought to death for it.
See also how Protagoras' (the arch Sophist) sentence of "Man the
measure of all things" fits with P. of ZMM's attitude of everything being
a human invention. Paul however mixes the pre-MOQ Pirsig with the
post MOQ one.
Note that intellect's first clash with social value says nothing about
how long it may have served as a good social pattern ...helping
society grow and prosper. Each time I enter this, it's a tendency (of
this group) to either point to "S/O patterns" as impssible ancient as
the biological self/non-self, or point to non-S/O phenomena like art,
aesthetics, intuition, math. etc. all of which are facets of DYNAMIC
VALUE.
Your speciality has always been the "cultural approach" to the MOQ
and again, how do you explain away this strong "cultural" indication of
a S/O intellect, and what is your definition if you scoff at the
Manipulation-of-symbols.." definition. It is not enough to say:
"SOLAQI doesn't work". Look to Scott's last inputs, I'm not alone in
seeing this.
Sincerely.
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 : Mon Sep 08 2003 - 07:15:25 BST