Hettinger (hettingr@iglou.com)
Wed, 6 May 1998 18:08:18 +0100
Hi, LS!
I just read Horse's definition of the problem before us, and I have one
thought that seems to need answering before I can tackle any of the rest.
Dualism.
It seems to me there are two different entities that are referred to as
"dualism".
One is a basic function of intellect--the ability of discernment. In
order to perceive anything, it must be discerned, and that that
discernment entails a recognition of whatever-it-is and
NOT-whatever-it-is. This is dualism, right? It's basic. And I said
it's a function of the intellect, but actually, it operates (differently,
but still as a basic function) in all the levels, right?
Pattern-matching. Pattern or not-pattern.
On the other hand, the Dualism that Pirsig was wrestling with in ZMM,
that he later resolved in Lila, was a different entity, a specific
social/intellectual manefestation of dualism. He was referring to the
fact that the Western cultural habit of dividing reality into mind/matter
and subject/object didn't always match the results. He subsequently
defined four major evolutionary levels, one of which (social) has been
completely unknown and unaccounted for. I think his insight gives us a
better definition of that prevalent dualism. The Western world is
divided into higher-than-social (subject, mind) and lower-than-social
(object, matter). And that is not as accurate, or as informative, as a
system that sees the four levels as distinct interacting systems.
I'll stop here. Take me up on this if you like.
Maggie
-- post message - mailto:lilasqd@hkg.com unsubscribe/queries - mailto:diana@asiantravel.com homepage - http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/4670
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:14 CEST