My friend and foe. On 16 Oct.:
> dmb says: > But Bo, I recently posted quotes from both James and Dewey on that > exact point. I don't see how its possible to deny it. The idea comes > up in nearly every reading and is discussed in nearly every class. > Both of them do so by way of a critical examination of philosophies in > history, attacking both traditional empiricism, rationalism and > idealism. Are you seriously asserting that this is all worthless just > because they didn't attack the Greeks? (Actually, they might have done > so in works I haven't yet read.) Not worthless by any means, and if you see James' "dynamic & flowing" as equal to DQ and the "static & discontinuous" equal to SOM I agree. This is MOQ's first stage of a Romantic pre- intellectual quality opposed by a Classic intellectual S/O quality. > Bo said: > And please note: intellect isn't subjectivity, its the VALUE of the > subject/object divide. > dmb says: > Intellect is the Value of SOM? I don't know what that means. You must be joking mr Buchanan, isn't the S/O - or mind/matter divide - an enormous value? It spells humankind's trek out of the mythological/religious-steeped past. Out of the social level and over to the intellectual in moqspeak. As said most of LILA conveys the S/O-notion of intellect, but for some reason Pirsig couldn't bring himself to say so, when speaking about intellect (that opposes society) he calls it "science", "truth" and "knowledge", but what are these except SOM? I addition all intellectual patterns that LILA mentions are somish to the core. . > dmb says: > I'll refer you to chapter 29 again. There Pirsig quotes James using > the terms "static" and "dynamic" and it also explains that what the > MOQ adds to James's doctrines is Quality. Pirsig is saying that pure > experience isn't just dynamic, it is dynamic quality. And when we look > at the things James was saying about his dynamic pure experience, the > quality is very much implied so that Pirsig's addition is very > congenial, not much of a leap at all. No serious disagreement, except that there are several candidates as reality's ground. For instance a metaphysics based on James' "aesthetic continuum" divided the D/S way and having the same static levels would have done the job. I really (!) can't see the reality=quality vs reality=reality difference, > dmb says: > No, I don't understand anything. I never saw the problem you're > apparently trying to solve and the solution itself is incomprehensible > too. Sorry, but I just don't get it. Phew, no problem with SOM's subjective self that one moment is it all (subjectivism) and the next a byproduct of the physical brain (materialism)? And you don't understand the that we get rid of the problem by relegateing it the role of the static intellectual level? Thereby the S/O retains its value, while its platypis evaporates. They are due to intellect being a static level and like all levels imperfect. When examined deeply enough intellect dissolves into society, society into biology, biology into "inorgany" and the inorganic into chaos. Exactly as the MOQ says Bo Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
