From: Mati Palm-Leis (mpalm@merr.com)
Date: Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:33:18 GMT
Paul, Bo, & others
In my mind I get where Bo is coming from and understand and see how
SOLAQI works. This statement is based on a sensibility that does not
require faith but rather the capacity to see SOM and how it works. When
I was going over ZMM, recall the part when Pirsig writes:
"Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes ancient Greece, one
invariably finds a strong subject one invariably finds a strong subject
-object differentiation because the grammar of the old Greek Mythos
presumed a sharp natural division of subject and objects and predicates.
In cultures such as the Chinese, where subject -predicate relationship
are not rigidly defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding absence of
rigid subject-object philosophy. ....
The mythos-over-logos argument points to the fact that each
child is born as ignorant as any caveman. What keeps the world from
reverting to the Neanderthal with each generation is the continuing,
ongoing mythos, transformed into logos but still mythos, the huge body
of common knowledge that unites our minds as cells are united in the
body of man. To feel that one is not so united, that one can accept or
discard this mythos as one pleases, is not to understand what the mythos
is." 315-316
SOM is the "new mythos" that is engrained in this "body of knowledge
that unites our minds". The problem is S/O Metaphysics, not the S/O
divide.
The reality is that Mankind through SOM has been reaping the benefits of
the S/O divide while suffering the consequences of "M". Zen Buddhism
seemed to see this and side stepped this notion of SOM all together. In
any case when man was able to use the SOM mirror he was able to see
himself as he had never seen himself before. It was this new capacity
that creates the new "intellect" level. But that "M" in the SOM mirror
creates a distortion that we have naturally accounted as real life. It
was that "M" that Pirsig wrestled with and MOQ liberates us.
Paul write: The fallacy is that it does not necessarily follow that,
because the first intellectual pattern was SOM, every intellectual
pattern is SOM.
I would modify the SOM to S/O divide and then for a brief moment
consider this. The "true intellectual value" of knowledge can be a
reflection and be seen in the S/O mirror. Every last bit of it.
Mati
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 : Thu Jan 22 2004 - 12:34:22 GMT