Bodvar Skutvik (skutvik@online.no)
Mon, 25 May 1998 09:03:45 +0100
Mon, 18 May 1998 22:02:24 -0400 (EDT)
Donald T Palmgren <lonewolf@utkux.utcc.utk.edu>
wrote:
......snip..........
> I bring this up because I want to ask, which is Pirsig attacking:
> S-O consciousness or SOM (a catagory of philosophical theories)?
Donny.
It is impossible to "blame" anyone for looking upon him-herself as
an individual (S-O consciousness). So I will say that Pirsig's
attack is on the SOM as a category of philosophical theories -
absolutely.
> I'm going to shut-up now, even though one other thing really stuck
> out in recent posts. Bo, in one of his last couple of posts implyed that
> intellectual patterns = consciousness. I think that's horably off, but
> I'll give Bo a chance to re-think.
Have I ever said - or implied - that intellectual patterns are equal
to consciousness? That can't be. Perhaps have I tried to pin
intellect down as "self-consciousness" or awareness (of the value) of
the individual contrasted to other (society), but not in the SOMish
ability-to-think or "awakening to consciousness" meaning.
> Doesn't Pirsig indicate that
> Intellectual patterns = logical, rigerous, systematic thinking, like
> science and philosophy.
He does, and those patterns are Intellectual value, but it will be
tiresome to list every conceivable InPoV individually so with my
SAIOM idea I try to define ALL intellectual patterns as S-O thinking
itself. (perhaps SAIOM should be renamed SOTAQI? (S-O thinking as
Q-intellect)). Can you imagine science without a more fundamental
subject-observing-objects notion, or philosophy without an individual
mind thinking about eternal truth?
> When he talks about the 20th century being the
> age of intellect asserting it's domminance over society, I don't think he
> means cvonsciousness or sentience, does he? What he means is a system of
> proof that is independent of the social status of the individual offering
> the proof (a very Enlightenment ideal).
Yes, Pirsig does and you are correct, but emergence is a long way
from dominance; once Q-intellect must once have been a frail
thing, but I don't think it took place as a creature fell down from
the tree, waking up thinking: Gee I am an Australopiticus! No, it
was the slow dawning of the individual's independence/liberation from
other/society: a movement that finally grew to dominate
society.
Bo
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:15 CEST