From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Fri Jan 23 2004 - 18:08:07 GMT
Paul and Apostles
20 Jan. you wrote:
> Incorrect - 2 is not the crux. Even if both premises are true it is a
> genetic fallacy to arrive at your conclusion. The fallacy is that it
> does not necessarily follow that, because the first intellectual
> pattern was SOM, every intellectual pattern is SOM. Just as all life
> is not a virus. Your logic is flawed.
If you admit to SOM being the FIRST intellectual pattern then it's
plain that it is the masterplan that all subsequent patterns
evolved from. About virus. I don't believe it is regarded as life,
rather that the cell is the basic biological structure and all
organisms are "cellular" without being called A cell.
> By the way, I've resorted to logical refutations to show you that the
> SOLAQI, as a theory, is based on poor reasoning, because I'm fed up of
> having my arguments brushed off as interpretation issues or as a
> personal bias against you. I'm not doing it to make you look silly.
OK, no ill feelings at all, but it seems that JoVo who found your
logic so persuasive has given up on it.
> Bo said:
> The point in the letter about the Orientals having developed (an?)
> intellectual level in the Upanishads period is highly interesting and
> - as said - I would have liked to have Pirsig elaborate.
> Paul:
> There's nothing profound in that sentence. To help explain why he
> wrote it, it was a response to a specific statement in my letter to
> him:
It is of profound interest to me.
> "[Defining intellect as simply thinking] has the benefit of including
> thought not emanating in cultures derived from Greece e.g. oriental
> thought, and makes subject-object thinking just one of many ways that
> experience can be organized, static-dynamic being a better
> alternative!"
I agree about dynamic/static being better than the S/O, but the
first part is you begging heavily for "answers". Anyway I have
written something to Steve about the intelligence platypus that I
believe is behind the intellect controversy. We must discuss it.
You added:
> Having a quick look at my letter, here is the other statement I made
> about "non-Greek intellect" in my letter to Pirsig:
> "[Intellect being post-Homeric thought only] has the negative effect of
> restricting the intellectual level to constructions of a subject-object
> basis therefore restricting much of eastern thought to the social level or
> excluding it completely which seems counter-intuitive to the values of the
> MOQ"
I can only repeat that I would have liked him to elaborate about
the "Oriental intellectual level".
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 : Fri Jan 23 2004 - 18:09:25 GMT