Hello Jonathan, Bodvar and everyone
"Jonathan B. Marder" wrote:
> Bodvar:
> >Dan's and Mark's agreement with you I doubt, . . .
>
> Dan was explicit about it (8th Sep):
> >indeed all reality is ultimately metaphorical in nature.
Dan:
While I tend to agree with Jonathan all reality is metaphorical, I feel
there is still disagreement between us concerning the implications of
this agreement.
>
> Bodvar
> <<<In my opinion language was/is the ultimate social instrument that
> Intellect used as a vehicle for its own purpose which is subject-
> objectivism itself. ...>>>
> Jonathan:
> I agree that language is a primary vehicle for intellectual activity
> since the dawn of human civilization - long, long before the emergence
> of subject-object based philosophy. Where I disagree is your attempts to
> limit Intellect to subject-objectivism only. Pirsig's novels and the MOQ
> website are strewn with quotes from great intellectuals such as Einstein
> and Poincare that attach great importance to the emotional/intuitive
> part of intellect.
Dan:
This is one of my concerns too with Bodvar's SOLAQI theory. However, I
tend to see the development of language as evolutionary valuing of
preconditioned subject/object awareness. For example, Bo once mentioned
Helen Keller and her struggle to gain knowledge to communicate with
others. Metaphorically seen in her light, certainly we humans possessed
language skills before civilization, but without a preconditional way
(language in humans) in which to communicate, social structures would
have no value latching opportunities. Before civilization as
historically recorded, humans lived and thrived and died for tens and
hundreds of thousands of years quite possibly in tribal\family units,
which again value preconditioned communication. I seriously doubt there
could be language as we know it without preconditioned subject/object
awareness.
> Bodvar:
> > Intellect is supposed to have society at its bottom something
> > Pirsig shows very convincingly in LILA, but if SOM's mind is
> > supposed to be
> > .....the exact equivalent of 'static intellectual patterns'
> > the opposite must apply: Intellect is the exact equivalent of 'mind',
> > and I don't find the social "nucleus" here.
> Jonathan:
> Bodvar, I find it strange how you can call Pirsig's treatment of
> intellect as convincing! You've given too many arguments to the
> contrary, and I agree with many of them (as I said in my previous post).
> IMO Pirsig's treatment of intellect is the least convincing aspect in
> Lila.
Dan:
Personally, I find Phaedrus' four static quality levels, plus undefined
Dynamic Quality, as quite a beautiful creation; simple, and yet
frustratingly complex. However, most of us, if not all of us, seem to
have our own personal metaphysics (a full cup) which we quite naturally
prefer to anyone else's. Again, look to the frustratingly difficult time
her teacher had in reaching Helen Keller. That is just Buddha nature, I
suppose... (or not?)
Dan
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:26 BST