Ron
18 March
Bo had said:
> As Pirsig says (in the PT letter) a line must be drawn somewhere for
> the social level lest it becomes useless (its biological roots show)
> as must be done for intellect, and he actually draws its line with the
> Greek thinkers (in MOQ this means SOM), but then he possibly saw the
> SOL implication and hastily added the cryptic "Oriental Intellect".
Ron:
> There is a reason.
> Logicians Main article: School of Names The logicians (School of Names)
> were concerned with logic, paradoxes, names and actuality (similar to
> Confucian rectification of names). The logician Hui Shi was a friendly
> rival to Zhuangzi, arguing against Taoism in a light-hearted and
> humorous manner. Another logician, Gongsun Long, told the famous When a
> White Horse is Not a Horse dialogue. This school did not thrive because
> the Chinese regarded sophistry and dialectic as impractical.
I wish you would make your point not just launch these quotes. Is
"when a white horse is not a horse" an example of Oriental
intellect?
> Bo, I guess eastern intellect did not value SOM Wow, guess that knocks a
> hole in SOM as intellect Theory ...
Sarcasm aside, yes the Chinese may not have dwelt on
"objecivism" long enough to make it a metaphysics in the same
way the Greeks did, hence they (the Orientals) did not develop a
science. Admittedly they invented things, but it never took off into
a technological culture. However, it was India Pirsig had in mind
when speaking about the Veda and Upanishads, but I guess the
same goes for the Indians, they had a flirt with objectivity, but
then went on to a Quality-like phase (what we know as ZEN, and
why this attracts some) and did not develop science and
technology.
An aside: You may note my new use of "objectivism" but I
believe this is better to make you understand that the S/O
primarily means objectivity with subjectivity only its "stooge man"
at first, but later the said man challenged its employee and only
then we may speak of a S/O metaphysics.
I see no holes in the SOL, but you - Ron - obviously fail to
understand the "intellect before and after the MOQ" point. The
4th. level is the value of the S/O distinction while SOM's
"intellect" is merely thinking. And your seemingly go on as if any
kind of thinking is the 4th. level.
> in fact there are even many types of Dialectic other than SOM, but how
> can that be? When intellect is the value of a subject/object Divide?
Are there non-SOMish dialectics?
What is essential to understand at this point is that until
now there was no such thing as mind and matter, subject
and object, form and substance. Those divisions are just
dialectical inventions that came later (ZAMM).
ZAMM describes dialectics as "the Church of Reason", as SOM
itself.
> Bo, I really see no reason for you to hold to the notion
> That SOM IS the intellectual level. SOL works just as well
> Accepting that SOM is one of many possible intellectual patterns. It
> Solves all your problems without creating any new ones. I really do
> not understand your reservation toward this, It resolves everything
> and allows SOL to function within The SOM pattern giving MoQ the
> explanatory power you Posit. -Ron
Again, the 4th level is the S/O distinction in its old "objectivity"
role (its metaphysical rank taken over by the MOQ) yet there
can't be an intellectual pattern without the S/O distinction in some
or other form. Please point to one or more non-S/O intellectual
patterns. Also tell me how you see the SOL "working just as well"
there may be nuances to your logic I haven't received. No
sarcasm.
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/
