Bo, Krimel and all MOQers: I've changed the thread name from "Mind-body practice" to reflect the actual content.
Bo said: ..."there can't be a non-S/O intellect, and that a non-S/O intellect is the result of the impossible intellect=thinking definition." dmb replied with a simple question: "What did Pirsig use to conceive and compose the MOQ?" Bo answered: How much is it possible to spin on the point that the MOQ is a metaphysics and as such a point of view from outside itself? P. of ZAMM used his intelligence - at first from SOM's premises - but slowly the logic of the new Quality Idea got hold of it and brought him to the Q premises, but P of LILA somehow got "cold feet". dmb now says: This is a good example. I can't make any sense of these sentences. A point of view from outside itself? Intelligence from SOM's premises? The logic of the new Quality idea? The Q premises? I honestly don't know what these phrases are supposed to mean. I keep trying to tell you that the existence of thought systems like the MOQ and are living proof that SOM is not the only way to conceptualize reality. But you keep finding ever more bizarre ways to dismiss this. For example... Bo said: ...We know that the MOQ has a social level and there are lots of "social-value-based" ways of conceptualizing reality: the great mythologies, the monotheist religions that replaced them, all animist and taboo world-views. Just every conceivable way of conceptualize reality (explaining experience) except the OBJECTIVE, rational, skeptical S/O explanation - are social-level conceptualizing. The Oriental tradition (called) may be a Quality-like breakthrough long before the West. dmb says: I'm not talking about mythologies or traditions. I have repeatedly referred to intellectual level philosophies, particularly James's radical empiricism. And I have repeatedly ask you how you would explain the fact that these non-SOM philosophies exist. But you don't explain that. You simply dismiss it. For example... Bo said: I don't deny for one moment that William James was on to a Quality-like development and that his "aesthetic continuum" may be compared to DQ, but neither makes any sense until - in Pirsig's case - the static part was added. James stayed in SOM with the "continuum" the objective reality that the human mind makes various subjective theories about. Pirsig went further but the infamous misconceived 4th level made him fall victim to the same trap. dmb says: The "undifferentiated aesthetic continuum" is Northrop's phrase and James's term is "pure experience" but both of them may be compared to DQ. And James does use the terms "static" and "dynamic". Pirsig mentions this on page 365 of Lila, which is at the end of chapter 29. "Pure experience cannot be called either physical or psychical: it logically precedes this distinction. In his last unfinished work, 'Some Problems of Philosophy', James had condensed this description to a single sentence: 'There must always be a discrepancy between concepts and reality, because the former are static and discontinuous while the latter is dynamic and flowing.' Here James had chosen exactly the same words Phaedrus had used for the basic subdivision of the Metaphysics of Quality." Further, James did not stay in SOM. That's exactly what he was fighting with his radical empiricism. On page 364-5, Pirsig describes James's radical empiricism. "By this he meant that subjects and objects are not the starting points of experience. Subjects and objects are secondary. They are concepts derived from something more fundamental which he described as 'the immediate flux of life which furnishes the material to our later reflection with its conceptual categories'." Bo said: Can't you turn off the "rich text" or HTML button, at times your lines go out to the right for miles and makes it cumbersome to read your posts from the archives - as I sometimes want to do. dmb says: If there is such a "button" on my computer, I don't know where it is. But that's not the problem anyway. These complaints began (with Krimel) when I started copying chunks from my term papers. (I learned to copy and paste at home only a few weeks ago.) Apparently, moving text from microsoft's "Word" to my posts causes problems. I don't know why or how to fix it. When it comes to computers, I'm barely literate. Having a computer at home is relatively new to me. (For years I posted from work and didn't own a computer of my own.) Guess I need a geek to stand over my shoulder and explain things because trying to learn from websites and manuals has never helped. I've wasted many fruitless hours trying. In fact, I don't even know what "rich text" or "HTML" means, where it is, what it does or what the alternatives are. To me, its totally meaningless. Apologies to anyone who suffers because of my ignorance. If anyone has advice, I'm all ears. Having said that, I'd urge you to read those cumbersome posts. James and Dewey are non-SOM philosophers and that's my main point. Their work is proof that there are non-SOM alternatives at the intellectual level. Thanks. dmb _________________________________________________________________ Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008 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/
