Ron, dmb, and others
> Ron said to dmb:
> I have no argument with your quotes, they do Attack
> SOM they also offer solutions within the context.
> But it's within The context. I'm not dismissing it
> or explaining it away, I acknowledge It as what it
> is. But as long as we live in SOM culture use SOM
> language And intellectualize about SOM as a concept,
> we are trapped in SOM.
> dmb says:
> Well, if you think we are trapped in SOM then you
> are certainly dismissing those quotes. Or maybe it's
> just that you don't quite understanding what they
> mean. My point here is to refute the idea that SOM
> and intellect are equal to each other, that we are
> trapped in it. Nobody denies that SOM is part of the
> language or culture. As I've said many times, those
> distinctions are useful and appropriate most of the
> time. The point James, Dewey and Pirsig make is
> simply that we ought not confuse these concepts with
> reality itself. These concepts have been given
> existential status by materialists and idealists
> alike. They have been reified by philosophers, made
> into a metaphysical reality rather than just a handy
> abstraction. That's the mistake. James, Dewey and
> Pirsig offer an alternative intellectual description
> that treat subjects and objects as secondary rather
> than primary. This is me not giving up on you. ;-)
> As far as I can tell, however, topos theory has
> nothing to do with this.
SA: I've stated many times how I see this s/o
perspective. Yes, it is in language and this culture,
but this is what I like to call the 'broad-edged
sword' approach to understanding. Culture is made up
of more than one type of intellectual pattern. To be
trapped in anything is too harsh of a concept.
Trapped means no way out. It is not this exclusive.
Western culture is made up of many different schools
of thought, and as I've pointed out Pirsig was arguing
against a certain school. The school of SOM. Pirsig
is of another school. James and Thoreau knew
something more in line with Pirsig. What of the
Sophists? Indo-European language didn't start with
Aristotle and company of the dialectians.
Indo-European language is also found in India.
Aristotle and company, then, needed to teach others
what they found out. Others in ancient Greece, others
different from Aristotle and company, continued on
with their tradition and understandings. These
'other's pop up from time to time throughout western
culture. Western culture isn't a mono-culture of one
kind and thus, is not a broad-edged sword. Let's
focus on language and what people know, and you find
out the Chinese, a different culture and language
history, learned about Buddhism, a sprout of
Indo-European culture, and the Chinese incorporated
these teachings of another totally different culture
into theirs and came up with Chan. Sure s/o
perspective has a basis in intellectual patterns, and
contributes many intellectual patterns, but s/o is a
smaller component of a much larger component of
intellectual patterns. Sure, it contributes, but it
is not the only intellectual pattern in this culture.
Would we say Friedrich Nietzsche was all about s/o? I
don't know. I haven't read his works, but he seems to
say something from what I've read on this forum that
speaks to a non-s/o crowd.
SA
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
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/
