I am back for a short haul. To response to a couple of posts.
Marsha Posted: It is thoroughly annoying that the subject, Reet, is female. Why Mati? Did you make the subject a female for a conscious reason? Is it you and Francis Bacon? Didn't he state, 'nature had to be hounded and made a slave to the new mechanized devices; science had to torture nature's secrets out of her'. Science might be moving on from the mechanical model, but... Oh Mighty Science, why not know thyself? Mati: Marsha, I had a 50/50 chance in choosing the correct gender and I blew it. But really the only reason I chose Reet is that I felt I could make her more articulate and intelligent sounding and be able to embed both, what I thought as both social and intellectual values. Also I see her as a corollary to Lila as the "complete package". However as I completed the transcript I was finally sensitive to some of the concerns of taking creative liberty based on gender. I then thought perhaps scraping the whole exercise instead I hit the send button, I blew it again. :-) Then Krimmel posted: [Mati previously] What happens when Phedrus meets Reet the complete package. Krimel answer "can only be an intellectual formation" and you suggest only social values. Personal I think both of you missed the mark and that she has both. Joe went down and listed social or intellect. [Krimel] My point was that in speaking Reet is intellectualizing. Whatever she is talking _about_ she is intellectualizing. She is examining her internal states and trying to express them in such a way as to create intersubjective understanding with her audience. I think part of the problem is that we do not experience "value" intellectually. We may express our "values" intellectually but that is not how we experience them. Mati: This goes to the issue of thinking=intellect which has many pitfalls inherent to SOM, and I don't think gets us any closer to a unified or coherent way of defining intellect. Though I do think that reflective practice, which I believe you are referring under the right conditions elicit a response with values are directly or inherently intellect in nature. This goes to the never ending question of defining intellect and I would add an additional question and understanding how do intellectual values manifest themselves as key questions. [Krimel previously] Here I don't think the MoQ is necessarily going to give us a set of new methodologies so much as is gives us a better understanding of how our methodologies work. Mati: I think that your second half of the statement hits the bulleye. But again this goes to the two previous question that I just made. Then again once we get those answers then I think there is a chance of us creating some better methodological approaches that may provide us a better understanding of what we are research, especially in the world of anthropology. More importantly than research it should give us a better understanding of our world around us. So many times people suggest (including Pirsig) that this is not important in understanding the greater importance of MOQ. I would suggest that this is the weakest link in the chain. As a son of a farmer and dealing with heavy chains the weakest link is the one you pay attention to the most. Whenever we put any tension to the question of intellect, this link seems to falls part. My sincere interest is to acknowledge this link and make it stronger. In this whole exercise I am reminded of a congressman asked about defining sexual harassment, his response was "I know it when I see it." I think the same is true about intellect. We intuitively understand what is intellect but we fail to capture the essence of understanding what make intellect, intellect and how it works. When I read Lila I intuitively understand what he is saying about intellect, but really how do we know it is real? I think there has been a general (I will use this term in the loosest of meaning) that Bodvar SOL captures the essence of intellect from the western metaphysical perspective. Both Bo and I are of the opinion that there is no rival to SOL in the eastern metaphysical tradition that dominated the social level and propelled intellect to what it is. Marsha, before you pounce on this, I will also concede that at this point nobody has been able to approach this question of eastern metaphysical understanding as a context for intellect. Therefore because it hasn't been thoroughly approached in this manner doesn't mean it is automatically disqualified as intellect, it just means that it hasn't met the muster that Bo has given to SOL as the heavyweight contender. I would also share that in Pirsig's letter to Paul that he has fallen short of giving us much to move forward on this issue. My belief that Pirsig has retired on the tremendous accomplishment of MOQ and will let us the next generation to figure out the details. So we will continue to debate this issue. Let us hope that a small group like minded individuals (about MOQ) are up to the task and can the whole chain as strong as the strongest of links. 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/
