Bo > I count my blessings, but "... key role in creating intellect" sounds > as if intellect is some entity that various helpers assisted with, > SOM a greater help, but I must insist that intellect IS the value of > the S/O distinction
DM: Well my intellectual history has alot of non-SOM content in it. Take a look at Charles Taylor's Sources of the Self > > Yes, the S/O - or intellectual value - returned from its Medieval > hibernating with the Renaissance and slowly worked itself > upwards in the social-value dominated Europe. Magna Charta, > Habeas Corpus, and the Bruno, Kepler and Galileo affairs were > mileposts, but I would say that the French revolution and the > following Enlightenment really accelerated its progress. But > according to Pirsig it was not until the end of WW1 that intellect > took command in the European theatre. DM: Yet there have always been those trying to challenge Enlightment blind spots, Blake,the great Romantics, Jung and there is a social class struggle in this Enlightenment movement too that is far from intellectual. > >> So I agree that you need SOM prior to reaching >> MOQ. But I still see MOQ as an intellectual development >> in itself, what else could it be? > > Well "what else could it be" reflects the notion of intellect the idea > faculty where all theories big or small reside, but this is not the > 4th. level's role, again, it's the value of the S/O distinction, what > has brought great progress. If you can manage the mental > exercise of seeing the intellect in its SOM role - when the said > distinction was seen as Reality itself, it ran its course. The 18th & > 19th scientists and thinkers were dead sure that the mind/matter > demarcation was water- and shockproof. Then modern physics > (primarily) quantum theory that shook these foundations. DM: Yeah and QT is an intellectual development that isnon-SOM, is that one not against you!? > >> What you say reminds me of Hegel, I was reminded >> recently of this when I read Rorty describing how Hegel >> saw SOM as a necessary step to overcoming the subject-object >> divide. Hegel being the first person to say such a thing in those >> specific terms (well German ones). > > Hmm, interesting. What little I know about Hegel is that he began > by rejecting Kant's SOM variety the "Thing for Us (subjective) vs > Thing in itself (objective) and replaced it with something > resembling "man the measure", all is human - in our mind as it > has come to mean - but this isn't the starting point of the MOQ. DM: Hegel saw Spirit as beyond the human of course. I > have a Pirsig letter wherein he says that any hegelian connection > with the MOQ is false, and the SOL interpretation does not > contradict the MOQ basics, it only concerns the intellectual level. > I will try to find Pirsig's exact words. > DM: Maybe, but I think Pirsig struggles to place his work in the western tradition as he has limited knowledge of it it seems to me from what I've read -to be frank. 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/
