LS
BO asks:
> (You are DLT of old? "Strawdog bites...")
[DLT]
Still tryn' to cipher that "mind-numbingly unclear .. philosophical message
interlarded with heavy slabs of historical anthropological-philosophical
ruminations which vary from the worthless to the plausible but rigorously
unoriginal" stuff. And beginning to see, after following these discussions for
a couple of years, that Strawson was not completely wrong. My mind is
continues to become "numbingly unclear' about philosophy in general and Pirsig
in particular.
[BO]
> Is it really according to the MOQ? I think it's still from ZAMM which
> I regard a preliminary stage of the Quality Metaphysics.
[DLT]
Yes, but some of the basics like the primacy of experience carry over between
the two, with little if any, change.
[BO]
> I do (for example) fully accept that time and space are Intellectual
> patterns and unessential to the lower levels, but that the lower
> levels are creations of the Intellect sounds like SOM's solipsism
> ("everything a mind game". Hi John Beasley!!) reintroduced. I
> would like the Q-Intellect to be something different.
>
> All right it may look like you (too) have Pirsig's backing, there was
> a quotation from a letter to Anthony McWatt that Risky-biz Roger
> brought into the "Reality & Observation" (Sat.21 Aug 1999) thread at
> the MD.
[DLT]
When you say "but that the lower levels are creations of the Intellect sounds
like SOM's solipsism" and "This sounds like Intellect-as-mind and also
SO-as-merely-one- particular-Intellectual pattern" your frustration is mine.
But I think this is where strengths and the confusions of merging the
"intuitive" Eastern philosophies with "rational" Western philosophies lies.
The East says reality is One. The West says reality is Many. Pirsig says in so
much as we conceive of reality as One, we are intuitively right, but that the
One we experience is Not-One because it is contingent on the mediation or
filtering of the Many. Round and round it goes where it stops nobody knows.
[BO]
> Even if I claim that the events around the Greek thinkers
> may be regarded as the emergence ('surfacing' perhaps) of the
> Intellectual level, it is not its BIRTH, only when it liberated
> itself from the Social level in earnest. Its roots are far back in
> the Social past. Language primarily.
[DLT}
Agreed.But with tongue firmly place in cheek would suggest that one could also
take the position that the "intellectual level" did not emerge until sometime
between 1974 and 1991. We certainly had no clue of it's existance prior to
November of 1991.
Dave
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 17 2002 - 13:08:50 GMT