From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Sat Sep 04 2004 - 10:38:07 BST
Scott: Even if one wants to keep to a temporal story, which in a way we have
to,
since we cannot imagine eternity, it is possible to speak of intellect
before there were people, and without positing an anthropomorphic Designer
God. On the biological level, instinct acts as a conceptual realm by which
the animal can react to particulars. An animal may have never encountered
some other animal before, but instinct -- a set of generalized patterns --
will get it to flee or chase. And on the inorganic level, physical law is a
conceptual reality that the physical things will always follow (though who
is to say that physical laws haven't changed over the eons).
DM: This is 100% right as far as I am concerned. I think Pirsig
leaves intellect on the 4th level with man as so many people
understand intellect only in human terms. Pirsig instead simply
explains how SQ/DQ manifests differently on different levels due
to what emerges as now being possible as the levels are built on top
of each other. SQ itself implies universality. You see concepts as
essential to universality as Hegel rightly does and therefore say intellect
where
Hegel says reason. Pirsig tries to keep off of these to avoid attack of
anthropocentrism. But to me the emergence of SQ/DQ is clearly
full of what cunning to borrow a word from Hegel. I take this to
be a quality of DQ that emerges on all levels. Even the abraxas moth has a
yearning love of its dream image of the universal light, or of the
ideal-lady
moth.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: MD Pirsig a nominalist?
> David M,
>
> > One tactical reason for this possible slant is
> > that a lot of what Pirsig is about is saying we
> > don't have to accept the concepts of SOM
> > & can see things via a different schema.
>
> I'm not sure I understand, but as I see it, Pirsig's quasi-nominalism, so
> to speak, is in my view not an escape from SOM but indicates continued
> captivity by SOM, at least its materialist, Darwinian form. The
materialist
> must assume nominalism. Pirsig allows for a real, non-materialist,
> intellectual level, but by assuming that it came into existence from a
> universe without intellect, he is still somewhat in thrall to that
> materialist mindset.
>
> Even if one wants to keep to a temporal story, which in a way we have to,
> since we cannot imagine eternity, it is possible to speak of intellect
> before there were people, and without positing an anthropomorphic Designer
> God. On the biological level, instinct acts as a conceptual realm by which
> the animal can react to particulars. An animal may have never encountered
> some other animal before, but instinct -- a set of generalized patterns --
> will get it to flee or chase. And on the inorganic level, physical law is
a
> conceptual reality that the physical things will always follow (though who
> is to say that physical laws haven't changed over the eons).
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
> 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
>
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 : Sat Sep 04 2004 - 10:44:18 BST