From: David Buchanan (DBuchanan@ClassicalRadio.org)
Date: Sun Jan 25 2004 - 23:31:06 GMT
Bo, Matt, Mati, Paul, and all thread followers:
Matt said:
Plants and animals are both biological, but most people wouldn't claim that
just because plants/animals evolved first doesn't mean that all
animals/plants are plants/animals.
dmb says:
I've been looking for a good place to jump in ever since Bo started
"courting" me and I guess this is as good a spot as any. The variety of life
forms that exist on the biological level is immense. The number of cultures,
languages and social structures is also pretty large. I fail to understand
how we can conclude that the intellectual level is identical to a single
world view or metaphysical system. In fact, the assertion that SOM=intellect
defies my own experience as a thinking creature. Sure, we're talking about
scientific materialism, its conventional wisdom in the educated West at this
point in history, but I think the ancients only planted the seeds for this
flower. And yes, even at the birth of intellect there was a certain way of
detacted analyisis, but I think its a mistake to equate abstract inquiry
itself as a nesessary feature of SOM. The ability to manipulate abstract
symbols need not lead to only a single conclusion. The same skills are used
in the East and in the West by an increasing number of non-SOM thinkers like
Pirsig. On top of non-SOM intellectual cultures and non-SOM thinkers, there
is my own experience. I've changed my worldview several times in the last 42
years and am convinced by that alone. The intellect is versatile enough to
hold any number of thought systems, alternative worldviews and constantly
does so as it evolves. And she's just a baby. You ain't seen nothin yet.
Matt said:
I think you can still claim that the spirit of what Pirsig wrote was leading
to the equation of SOM and intellect though Pirsig never enunciated it.
Paul replied:
He has not only never enunciated it, he has denied it.
dmb adds:
Right. Pirsig has not only denied that but also asserted that the
intellectual level is larger than SOM. "There are many sets of intellectual
reality in existence and we can perceive some to have more quality than
others . . ."
Matt said:
Barring even that, Bo can still define SOM as intellect and see how far
he gets in developing, defending, and using his view. Does it clear up
holes in Pirsig? Does it clear up other philosophical anamolies? If Bo
did this (which is what I think he should do), then it wouldn't matter
if it was in Pirsig at all.
dmb says:
Well, I think SOLAQI creates holes and the need for a fifth level and such,
but more than that I'd like to take issue with the notion that its ok to
insert our own alternate definitions of the MOQ's key terms. To be frank,
unless great care is taken to distinguish between our own ideas and Pirsig's
ideas, I think such a practice is so confusing that its downright
inconsiderate. As I understand it, Pirsig has some interesting ideas, he's
fairly good at expressing and explaining those ideas and his book is proof
of that. In that book, he tells us where he got his ideas and he tells us
about the methods of organizing these ideas. He SHOWS US HIS MIND. He wants
us to understand what he's saying. Its just that kind of book.
Of course its ok for people to have other ideas and compare them, but let's
not pretend that there is no difference between an incorrect reading and an
alternative idea. I mean, I think Bo would very much like the MOQ to be cast
in his image and would love to persuade the author himself to convert. I
love Bo, but let's not pretend SOLAQI is anything other than an
interpretation of Pirsig.
Hugs and kisses,
dmb
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 : Sun Jan 25 2004 - 23:34:11 GMT