Hi Heather (Am I finally allowed to speak to you?) On 25 Oct. :
[Bo] > > Here he introduces Descartes as an intellectual who is blind to this > > fact. However, the way he uses China I'm not sure what means, he > > obviously regards the Chinese a culture where intellectual level isn't > > dominant, but is it pre- or post intellect? Heather: > Your so stuck on this intellectual definition. He brings up China to > show that culture influenced Descartes "I think therefore I am", thus, > Pirsig says if Descartes would have said, "'The seventeenth century > French culture exists, therefore I think, therefore I am,' he would > have been correct." Agree (except about stuckness) culture influences its members. > In China Descartes would not have been a big hit to pass down such a > saying through the ages, thus Pirsig says, "(would) China have listened > to him and called him a brilliant thinker and recorded his name in > history?" Pirsig is comparing cultures and the people and their > intellectual patterns cultivated from such cultures during this quote > of yours. Why your "obviously" I've got no clue? If any culture is "social value" and its outlook is "intellectual value" the MOQ is nil and void. If so ancient mythologies were "intellectual" and that's patently wrong, that era was social VALUE through and through. Seventeenth century Europe was a budding intellectual (enlightenment) culture and Descartes helped cement intellect with his philosophy. For China not to be impressed by the "cogito" sentence it was either a social value-steeped culture or one that had transcended intellect. The latter alternative I find in agreement with LILA about the Orientals having advanced beyond SOM to a Quality-like outlook. > Wow, this "conflict" and "hate" of yours? The > intellectual levels is not to destroy the social > level, remember? Why deny one of MOQ's major tenets, that of the level struggle? It enables us to avoid the dire consequence of "sawing over the branch we are sitting on". Yet, the conflict is not soluble. Death (Inorganic) will always be something life (Biology) struggles against. Biology's jungle law is what Society is a relief from and Social bigotry is what Intellect is freedom from. Much can be said here. By seeing intellect as a static level the MOQ becomes a freedom from intellect's (S/O) constraints and by this it has its own struggle with intellect. And LILA fetched much hostility from intellectual critics who disliked his pointing to intellect's struggle with society - and also its "unholy alliance" with biology (to quench society). In this context the MOQ may be tempted to join society in their common struggle against intellect. But that can't happen because it is above ALL levels and sees intellect as a higher good than society --- just not the only good - as in its SOM capacity. > Bo, you stick with the moq? Wow, now that's so old-fashion. We threw > out the moq a long time ago. It was deemed wrong, charges were > pressed, and the jail term was set at 20 life sentences. The key was > thrown out, but it seems the moq has escaped, and your the only one > that sticks to the moq. Thank G-d for Bo!!!! Hip-hip-hooray! Sarcasm is wasted, I'm fascinated by the MOQ and can't stand to see its phenomenal explanatory power reduced to zero. 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/
