Marsha,
Marsha: Don't be arrogant, or naive, or both. Or lazy.
Mati: Two points, first my wife might suggest you hit a hat trick, second
just because I might be arrogant, naïve or lazy it alone does not negate the
possibility that I have a point or could still be correct.
Marsha:
"The Prasa?gika Madhyamaka solely avowed technique is to show by prasa?ga
(or Reductio Ad Absurdum) that any positive assertion ("it is", or "it is
not") made about - or view proclaimed of - phenomena must be regarded as
merely conventional (sa?v?ti or lokavyavahara). Therefore there is no
position that constitutes the ultimate truth (paramartha), including the
views and statements made by the Prasa?gikas themselves, which are held to
be solely for the purpose of defeating all views. The Prasa?gikas also
identify this to be the message of the Buddha who, as Nagarjuna put it,
taught the Dharma for the purpose of refuting all views."
This is intellect! See for yourself.
Mati: Sincerely, I thank you for your very reasonable attempt to counter my
contention that Bo is right about SOM being the taproot of intellect by
using these examples. However, I know I skating on real thin ice and not
wanting to be offensive, I would respectfully suggest your declaration that
these examples as forms of intellect can only be done from a SOM
perspective. More importantly if I am wrong please then articulate a
definition/idea/postulate, that defines intellect. Then use the questions I
posed or if you have any better ones let me know. Here is the issue that I
have, none of the examples you stated that I am aware of, ever dominated the
social level and continues today to dominate. If you have an have a firm
example as how it did I would be interested.
> Mati: If
> the Eastern philosophical tradition was able to define reality in a more
> effective means I would suggest that would be a) incorporated already or
> b)
> displaced SOM or c) we would be studying them in the western world.
Marsha: Maybe, Mati, it was not as profitable. And maybe, the Eastern
philosophical
tradition was more about a _pure freedom_ than the freedom espoused in the
West. That which is called freedom today in the West is nothing more
enslavement. And consider how many centuries the intellect of the early
Greeks was lost to bobble-headed Western intellectuals.
Mati: We seem to like tossing the word pure freedom or freedom as some
trump card when discussing intellect. Ok here is a trick question, how do
we know that freedom is real? Anyway as I mentioned to Ian the corollary to
freedom is responsibility. Those of us who have had the experience of
dealing with doctorial level research, Pirsig, Anthony myself and others,
know that additional words like integrity, and validity are the foundations
of the work we attempt to do and rooted in the research mythologies.
Personally my profit of my past research work is $0.00 its costs both
financially and personally have exacted a high price. Look in Lila, Pirsig
was trying to study Indians using the traditional methods. Given his
experiences in the East I would have wondered if there was no other
institution that would have allowed him to do the research he wanted to do
to exact the truest understanding of the Indian culture he was trying to
study. Now that all being said, I believe that MOQ can provide a new way of
approaching research that is valid, maintains integrity, and perhaps provide
a greater latitude for freedom. My issue at the MOQ Conference and still
is, without nailing intellect down to a reasonable point of understanding,
MOQ never will be able to have any greater meaning or contribution than this
discussion group.
Graciously submitted by your bobble-headed intellectual :-)
Mati
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/
