From: Paul Turner (paulj.turner@ntlworld.com)
Date: Tue Jan 20 2004 - 09:43:37 GMT
Bo
Bo said:
My claim is:
1) ZMM describes the emergence of SOM with the Greeks.
2) LILA and all Pirsig says conveys the impression that the intellectual
level emerged with the Greeks!
3) Intellect=SOM.
Admittedly # 2 is the crux
Paul:
Incorrect - 2 is not the crux. Even if both premises are true it is a
genetic fallacy to arrive at your conclusion. The fallacy is that it
does not necessarily follow that, because the first intellectual pattern
was SOM, every intellectual pattern is SOM. Just as all life is not a
virus. Your logic is flawed.
By the way, I've resorted to logical refutations to show you that the
SOLAQI, as a theory, is based on poor reasoning, because I'm fed up of
having my arguments brushed off as interpretation issues or as a
personal bias against you. I'm not doing it to make you look silly.
Bo said:
The point in the letter about the Orientals having developed (an?)
intellectual level in the Upanishads period is highly interesting and -
as said - I would have liked to have Pirsig elaborate.
Paul:
There's nothing profound in that sentence. To help explain why he wrote
it, it was a response to a specific statement in my letter to him:
"[Defining intellect as simply thinking] has the benefit of including
thought not emanating in cultures derived from Greece e.g. oriental
thought, and makes subject-object thinking just one of many ways that
experience can be organized, static-dynamic being a better alternative!"
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 : Tue Jan 20 2004 - 09:42:52 GMT