From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Mon Jun 27 2005 - 06:30:59 BST
Matt ...fer Chrissake!
On 24 June you wrote:
> Oh, fer Chris---
> No Bo, I sincerely doubt there was _any_ "subjective belief" vs.
> "objective knowledge" distinction built into Mike's description of the
> intellectual level. You are reading that in there all on your own.
Is this a contest in non-understanding? Of course there was no
"subjective belief/objective understanding" in Mike's description,
that's the very problem. "Belief" is an intellectual construct that
has the said counter-part implied, picking one half of it looks
harmless and intellect (as SOM) loves these lop-sided definitions
of itself: As belief, as thinking, as mind, but most of all it loves
that of MOQ as an intellectual pattern, this secures its position.
> When I co-opted Mike's description (no less because its something I
> say all the time), I certainly wasn't implying one. And I really,
> really doubt Paul would've subscribed had it been there.
Of course not, that's the snag.
> And I don't
> see anything in Mike's writing to suggest something invidious like it.
> We were (at least I was) simply looking for a way of describing the
> interrelationship that marks an intellectual pattern, an
> interrelationship between language, personhood, and truth. Somebody
> else (say...you) can come along and put up a distinction between
> subjective beliefs (beliefs that are _not_ easy to justify to
> everybody else) and objective knowledge (beliefs that _are_ easy to
> justify to everybody else), but it isn't required. It is an
> additional assumption on that person's part.
OK, intellect's "objective over subjective" half can relatively
easily be undermined by your "subjective over objective" counter-
arguments (as well as the other way round) but don't you realize
that the last one is intellect too?????? The greatest
misunderstanding is that that the MOQ has an affinity for the
subjective aspect of SOM.
In LILA Pirsig mostly treats intellect's "objective over subjective"
aspect - as science - and rallies against it's conviction of not
having its origin in society. Rightfully so, but he goes too lightly
over its "subjective over objective" part; That the MOQ - by
rejecting SOM - opposes this just as much. Had he done so this
intellectual mess would have been avoided.
> By the way, I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that
> the Greeks didn't have a distinction between (something like)
> subjective belief and (something like) objective knowledge.
The pre-intellect - social level - Greeks that is.
> What was
> the distinction between opinio and episteme then?
I don't have ZMM here, but it says something to the effect "..until
that moment there had been no subject/object, no mind/matter
..etc. He might have added ..no opinion/episteme dualism .
I may add. The pre-SOM ancients surely knew truth from lies, but
the opinion/knowledge dichotomy is part of the newfangled
awareness ...the Western at least.
> Was that something
> Socrates himself had created? Or the Greek's in general? 'Cuz I
> hadn't heard that before.
The whole point in ZMM is that Socrates-Plato-Aristotles were the
end of a several-century development. Need we start arguing
about THIS?
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 : Mon Jun 27 2005 - 06:34:25 BST