From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Sun Feb 22 2004 - 13:09:24 GMT
Bo
Paul previously said:
> He clearly states in his letter to
> me that he considers the Upanishads to be part of the intellectual
> level which is consistent with the line in Lila, "Following the period
> of the Brahmanas came the Upanishadic period and the flowering of
> Indian philosophy. Dynamic Quality reemerged within the static
> patterns of Indian thought." [Lila p.438]
Bo said:
It does not say ...re-emerged within the static intellectual patterns
of Indian thought. And in the very same letter he ridiculed "thinking"
as a criterion of intellectual. So I think it's "a
draw".
Paul:
This is becoming pathetic. Look, is there anything ambiguous about this
statement?:
"[T]he Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level independently
of the Greeks during the Upanishadic period of India at about 1000 to
600 B.C."
"INDEPENDENTLY OF THE GREEKS DURING THE UPANISHADIC PERIOD OF INDIA"
And does it not bear a striking resemblance to:
"Following the period of the Brahmanas came the Upanishadic period and
the flowering of Indian philosophy." [Lila p.438]
Bo said:
Maybe one may say that the Oriental culture started the intellectual
process, but it stalled..luckily for them.
Paul:
Where did you dream this nonsense up from? What evidence is there to
back this up?
Bo said:
I know, but Pirsig's letter went FROM the "thinking" definition TOWARDS
that of intellect emerging with the Greeks ...something that
automatically makes it the S/O.
Paul:
Incorrect, as above - "AN INTELLECTUAL LEVEL INDEPENDENTLY OF THE
GREEKS." That is a knock-down argument.
Bo said:
The Oriental question is MU!
Paul:
Ridiculous. The "Oriental question" is only raised by the
narrow-mindedness of your SOLAQI.
Bo said:
Oriental culture may be social-value-based but fully capable of
understanding and exploiting intellect's "virtues" ... their
technological ingenuity has demonstrated that.
Paul:
So although, according to you, Oriental people are not part of the
intellectual level they can understand and exploit intellectual patterns
of technology. This is a new one. I thought that, in your version,
patterns from one level could only "use" the patterns from the level
below. You seem to be terribly confused.
Bo said:
I have never used "philosophy", "Western" or "non-religious" as
definitions of intellect...
Paul:
Even in this very post you have! From above...
"the point is that religious thinking isn't intellectual value"
and
"It's no use going on about "their intellectual patterns" when the
thinking so obviously was religious."
Paul previously said:
> Furthermore, in eastern culture, I believe one cannot draw such a
> sharp line between philosophy and theology.
Bo said:
If that line is blurred the power of the MOQ is gone.
Paul:
On the contrary, see DMB's post and the excellent "MOQ and Islam" posts
to see how the MOQ helps bring refreshing clarity to an understanding of
religion.
Bo said:
The Norse myth was built on sense observation: When lightning blinded
and thunder rumbled it was the God Tor who struck his hammer; that was
rigorously logical.
Paul:
Logic in myths? Is "logic" the latest thing to be ejected from the
ever-dwindling SOLAQI intellectual level?
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 Feb 22 2004 - 13:08:35 GMT