Mati,
That's a lame excuse, sorry, but many arguments come up but due to you
liking something, giving it greater value is why you are saying nothing matches
SOL. It's all about where one draws that heart with an arrow in it. Somebody
could talk to somebody else until they turn blue in the face, but if you hold
value you will not change your mind. It's that easy. Maybe some redrawing
over and over while one day-dreams... anyways..
I know I'm saying something and not giving much of a response, one that
you might want, but Ron has said much, I have in the past, and many others here
too - read Marsha's posts. But since you seem to value the SOL, do you really
think your going to throw it away. Since I'm not really arguing intellectually
here, I'm just matching your argument from below. Then again, art is better
than intellect - a la code of art, I say better, which is only more empty moq
rhetoric that Pirsig mentions, you know the level system with code of art over
intellect, and such, so anyways, art is good and your drawings below are
value-ladened with pigeon-holes, which is a point the moq is trying to make.
So, this is my pigeon-hole version of the strength of value, even if it
something you value or not.
my own pigeon-hole,
woods,
SA
SA
--- On Thu, 7/31/08, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From: Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [MD] Reet and the Weakest Link
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Thursday, July 31, 2008, 5:20 AM
> Mati: 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 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.
>
> Ron:
> It is not a contender because SOL only recognizes it's
> own standard of what qualifies as intellect. S/O does not
> originate in a culture with a language which is
> pictographic
> and does not make a concrete/abstract distinction.
> SOM came to the east via Alexander the great. It did
> not catch on the way it did in indo-European languages.
> It used deductive logic pragmatically but the linguistic
> analytics did not translate.
> abstract concepts like "is-ness" and
> "horseness" and
> "white-ness" did not translate into a
> pictographic
> lingual system.
> The introduction of the Canaanite alpha bet along
> with the word "is" into the Greek culture sparked
> the question in the Greek mind, what does it mean
> "to be" what does it mean to say that something
> "is"? when the east was defining what was
> description
> and what was experience. Making the observation to
> "don't always believe what you think."
>
> The Chinese dynasties begin around 1500 B.C. with their
> culture dated around 3,000 B.C. about the time of the Sumar
> developed Cuneform a pictographic language.
> The Sumerians developed a precise system of mathematical
> notation which was a major legacy given to the modern
> world.
> this was their sexagesimal system. Inductive mathematics.
> Around 2400 b.c., the first great warlord of western
> history, Sargon,
> appeared. His language was Akkadian which is of the Semitic
> linguistic
> family.
>
> - he established the Akkadian kingdom which conquered all
> of Mesopotamia
> and replaced the Sumerian language.
>
> - around 2200 b.c., the Sumerians regained control of
> southern
> Mesopotamia and the Akkadians and Sumerians became
> indistinguishable.
>
> The Semitic languages are a family of languages spoken by
> more than 300
> million people across much of the Middle East, North
> Africa, and the
> Horn of Africa. They constitute the only branch of the
> Afro-Asiatic
> language family spoken in Asia.
>
> The most widely spoken Semitic languages today are
> Arabic[1] (325
> million native speakers),[2] followed by Amharic (27
> million),[3][4]
> Tigrinya (about 6.7 million) [5], and Hebrew (about 5
> million)[6].
>
> Semitic languages were among the earliest to attain a
> written form, with
> Eblaite and Akkadian writing beginning in an adapted
> cuneiform script
> around the middle of the third millennium BC.
>
> Mati, my point being that Semetic languages utilize a
> character or
> grapheme, an abstract unit of text, whereas a glyph or
> pictogram,
> is a graphical unit.
> Abstraction arose from language type, by the time the
> Greeks emerged
> from Canaanite and Babylonian influence they fused the
> concept of
> "is " with inductive measurement. With the
> ability to distinguish
> by virtue of their abstract characters, the distinction
> between
> the abstract and the concrete or the measurable from the
> not
> measurable in experience whereas pictographic languages did
> not have this sort of flexibility in meaning.
> Deductive reason allowed for accurate abstraction from the
> measurable.
> the Greeks were already working from the assumptions of the
> civilizations
> who ruled and influenced them thousands of years before
> their rise.
> By the time Alexander ruled Semetic languages ruled and
> being a student
> of Aristotle spread deductive analytical reason and the
> koinic dialect
> or "common tongue" of Greek S/O speech. The
> speech that became the Greek
> that Rome eventually adopted for it's formal language.
> For 3,000 yrs
> by virtue of military conquest did SOL become the
> "heavy weight" by
> default. Not by it's sheer intellectual superiority
> alone.
> If the Chinese dynasties would have conquered all of asia
> and Europe,
> dominated the trade and language for the past 3,000 yrs,
> you can bet
> your pants that SOM and SOL would be a minor footnote in
> the greater
> empirical history of Chinese eastern culture.
>
> but you're right Mati, Bo saying it's so is a much
> more solid case
> than all this history and linguistics stuff I dug up.
> I've approached this subject many times and supported
> all of it with
> research and reference. Yet you or Bo refuse to acknowledge
> any of it.
>
> -Ron
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/
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/
