Sorry Bo, but I have to add my usual rejoinder to your point ... Reason (GOF-Reason) = SOM (Historical fact) Reason (Current / New) Reason = MOQ (and other non-SOMist thinking)
Reason "does not equal" SO-Metaphysics. Reason has evolved. Reason can be more enlightened than it used to be. We still use SOMist models (approximations to reality) whilst reasoning in any symbolic / linguistic sense (the symbols represent the S's and O's and their relations) but that is a useful tool (if sometimes misleading, like any approximation), but not metaphysics. Ian On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:39 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > 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/
