From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Jan 25 2004 - 08:42:02 GMT
Matt, Bo
Matt said:
I replayed this little dialogue because I wanted to say something about
argumentation. I think Paul's right, as long as Bo claims that there is
a necessary, logical connection between 1-3, he stands on poor ground,
that somehow just because it was first means that everything follows in
its footsteps. 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. That seems a little
silly.
However, I don't think saying "logical refutation" gets at what's really
going on. I don't think Bo's suddenly wrong because we can't get from 1
and 2 to 3.
Paul:
Correct. I'm pointing out, logically, that he is not necessarily right,
which is the claim that started this thread. That is, Bo was saying
that, if it can be shown that SOM was the first intellectual pattern, it
necessarily follows that SOM is intellect.
Matt said:
What that sometimes means is that there's another premise laying around
that would make sense of the reasoning chain. As an interpretational
issue of what Pirsig means by the "intellectual level," I think Bo
doesn't have a leg to stand on, but as a piece of philosophy I don't see
why anybody else isn't as creaky as he is.
Paul:
Agreed. Each philosophy stands and falls on its own merit.
Matt said:
I think if Pirsig had meant SOM to be the intellectual level, he might
have said it. However, 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:
He has not only never enunciated it, he has denied it.
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.
Paul:
Completely agree, but instead he has spent 6-7 years trying to convince
everybody it was what Pirsig really meant. He could have written his own
book by now :-)
Regards
Paul
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 - 08:40:56 GMT