DMB, Marsha, Steve, All. Seems like I'am alone on the dance floor (murder on ...etc) Anyway 21 Dec. DMB cited Steve's:
> > ...I am saying that SOM is an intellectual pattern and my concern was > > whether you are seeing SOM as a social pattern as well as an > > intellectual pattern which would suggest to me what I think would be a > > misunderstanding of what social patterns are. and butted in: > Since the "M" in "SOM" stands for metaphysics I think we have say > categorize it as intellectual, but it seems that it has roots in the > social level Now it seems like SOM is something that straddles society and intellect! Is this because of my SOL that everyone rushes to the extreme opposite? At least DMB puts it inside intellect ....just. Then he says it has roots in the social level, yes, and what has such roots if not intellect itself. See the SOL pops up, but trust DMB not to notice. > in at least two important ways. If SOM has roots in the social level it is THE intellectual level and has roots in every conceivable way. Is this a contest in how odd it's possible to express oneself? (Grumpy Bo) > The first is the structure of the language, one that evolved long > before philosophy came along. Agree about language. > The second has to do with the subjective self. That "mental substance", > as least Descartes called it. That SOM got a mental/corporeal form with Descartes is well known - after having gone through a lot of stages since the first discernible form of truth versus opinion, stages that looks like the complete opposite. For instance as in this Cartesian case where the mental became subjective in the irreal sense while "soul" was the objective in the eternal sense. So you are wrong about ... > This cartesian subjective self is the modern version of the soul. Its a > secularized version of a religious idea, "Soul" was the result of the Greek (SOM) culture's encounter with Judaism which became Christendom and whose variety was the soul/body dualism where - again - the former was the objective and lasting entity. > one that asserts the existence of a supernatural and eternal entity. We > can reject this cartesian self without also rejecting the idea of > symbol manipulation, the use of abstractions or otherwise deny our > intellectual capacities, which is what Bo seems to do. Reject the cartesian self? What nonsense. We reject SOM as a metaphysics, that we all agree about, but can't reject one of its "elements", the S/O aggregate - among that the symbol/what's symbolized and the abstract/concrete - is far to valuable to reject. It remains as the intellectual level, that's the only solution. Steve had said: > > ...I don't see a social aspect to mind though intellectual patterns are > > culturally constructed. Pirsig defines culture as social and > > intellectual patterns. ...intellectual patterns are indeed learned > > within a culture but that doesn't make them social patterns. These are > > still intellectual glasses not social glasses. No social aspect to mind! Now the intellectual level has become SOM's "mind". No comments. > dmb butts in some more: > It seems to me that the 4th level always has the 3rd inherently. Jeez, but the tenet that the higher level has its root in the lower is no revelation, course intellect is out of society. > We're first taught to speak the language of the culture into which we > are born and only after that has been absorbed and developed can we > begin to exercise our intellectual capacities. The language and the > culture gives us the concepts and thought categories that we'll > eventually be able to manipulate skillfully rather than simply use > conventionally. The upper level's purpose is to "tame" the lower - and in this process it regards it as evil, but this makes nil and void of the MOQ. A culture is not necessarily social value, the one in which we westerners are born is not a social-value, but intellect-value dominated. This is what LILA speaks about regarding intellect joining forces with biology to destroy social law&order. INTELLIGENCE (and language)is manipulation of symbols (skilfully or not) while INTELLECT is the ability to distinguish between what's subjective and what's objective. It's obvious because this pattern is the only one that accounts for the "intellectual patterns" that Pirsig correctly lists as intellectual and is what alienates social value. I asked Spirit of A how he saw democracy and trial by jury emanated from "manipulation of symbols" but that was in vain, maybe you DMB can inform us? Merry Christmas 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/
