Andrè, Horse, All
3 Nov. Andrè wrote:
> Allow me to put my two bob's worth of thoughts in here as this has
> fascinated me even before joining this Discuss.
> In Pirsig's very real 'concrete' example of the doctor's 'dilemma' in
> killing the germ or letting the germ kill the person, Pirsig shows us
> a first and full level improvement of how to employ the MoQ *method*
> of reason(ing) as opposed to SOM method of reason(ing), anticipating,
> deflecting, possible (religiously inspired) moral dilemma's e.g. to do
> with embryo's , right to life, right to death (euthanasia).
I still wonder what relevance the "doctor vs germ" example has in the
Reason=SOM debate (are there doctors who have qualms using
antibiotics?) but it must have something to do with Andrè's about MOQ
as a "method of reasoning" as opposed to SOM's ditto. And I'll
concentrate on this to (try to) make my point.
"Method of reasoning" has a "way of thinking" ring to it and Horse
(representing orthodoxy) refers to the tenet that MOQ is an intellectual
pattern competing with SOM for supremacy at that level something
that makes intellect a realm of different "ways of thinking" ..agree?
Now, there was a time before the 4th. level when the social level was
Q-evolution's "leading edge" but there were intelligent people around
who displayed "ways of thinking" f.ex. by creating complicated
mythologies. Were these intellectual patterns??
This is the blind ally that orthodoxy leads into; If intellect is the said
realm of reasoning then social reasoning must be intellect too, even
animal's non-verbal reasoning And why stop there as Pirsig says in
the PT letter
If one extends the term intellectual to include primitive cultures
just because they are thinking about things, why stop there?
How about chimpanzees? Don't they think? How about
earthworms? Don't they make conscious decisions? How
about bacteria responding to light and darkness? How about
chemicals responding to light and darkness? Our intellectual
level is broadening to a point where it is losing all its meaning
But these relevant observations are nullified by Pirsig's own insisting
that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern while it's plain that INTELLECT
IS A MOQ PATTERN. The said insisting is what spawns the
misconception that intellect is where "metaphysics" are - the MOQ
included. If this could be cleared up the SOL would be the only way to
interpret the MOQ.
IMO
Bodvar
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/
