Bo said to Ian and Groupies: ...But why for Goodness' sake not admit that the 4th. level=the S/O distinction instead of uphold this impossible "intellect" that - according to DMB is a vessel that one moment can contain the SOM the next the MOQ? In this "mind"-like intellect the 3rd. level is also an intellectual pattern as the second and first levels too ... and SOM prevails.
dmb says: As I see it, your objection is based on the idea that "mind" or "intellect" is equal to the subjective self, a vessel that contains ideas or does the symbol manipulating. And it seems you think Pirsig is also guilty of slipping back into SOM in his descriptions of the intellect. So I guess the task is to try to show you how we can have intellect without also having at the same time a subjective cartesian self. For starters, I'd point to the roots of SOM in the grammatical structrure of Indo-European languages as Pirsig does. The point of this is to say that SOM is not just ingrained in Western languages because of its philosophical developments but also that the philosophical developments were shaped by the structure of the language from which it emerged. The classic cartesianism (I think, therefore I am) reveals this quite nicely. Anti-SOMist like Nietzsche, Pirsig will point out that the phrase 'I think' is misleading and redundant. As in the case of 'it is raining', there is no 'it' over and above the raining itself. There is no 'I' that acts as an agent of the thinking, who is separate from the thinking itself. This is what Pirsig means when he says that we do not HAVE the static patterns of quality, we ARE the patterns. We ARE all those conflicting values, including the intellect. Its not easy to get this idea across because the grammatical structure remains the same and the modern West's emphasis on individuality puts up some serious resistance too. But its just a matter of being able to conceive of the capacity for abstract symbol manipulation in the absence of the fictional entity that is supposed to somewhere behind that action. Getting rid of SOM is a matter of rejecting the subjective self, that ridiculous homunculus behind the eyeballs. Fortunately, we don't have to throw thinking or intellect our the window with it. I also would object to being classified as an Ian groupie. Sure, I follow him from town to town and try to hook up with him after the shows, offering sex and drugs and gushing about how great he is. But that doesn't make me a groupie, does it? Thanks, dmb _________________________________________________________________ Boo! Scare away worms, viruses and so much more! Try Windows Live OneCare! http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/purchase/trial.aspx?s_cid=wl_hotmailnews 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/
