[Ian]} > Platt I make an exception for ... insults are the only things he makes > any sense of ... apologies if that offends, but I ran out of patience > with his deliberate ignorance a long time ago. And apologized to > anyone else (inlcuding Horse) ever since. Life's too short for me to > waste any on Platt.
So impatience justifies personal attacks? Looks like nother excuse to be hateful, intolerant and insensitive. > As for patterns or levels ... I was not mixing them up. > > Pirsig is talking about "this" intellectual level, the state of the > intellectual level (the sum total of all the patterns evolved) at that > time. Post WW1. Now the intellectual level is the "sum total of all the patterns evolved" to date? That's a new one. Any evidence? Platt > Ian > > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 2:59 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Good man Ian. > > > > On 26 Nov you spoke:. > > > >> Nice try Bo, but getting desperate if you need Platt's defence and > you > >> need to start accusing those you are debating with of simply being > >> "faithful" ... I'd be careful with the personal insults if I were > you, > >> I was still trying to help. > > > > I have never joined the anti-Platt faction which is based on political > > preferences and irrelevant for our lofty discussion. And what's the > > point of these fatherly admonishing? Where's the insults? > > > >> So to dismiss Platt's defence. > > > >> Pirsig does not say "the intellectal level" He says "this > intellectual > >> level" Referring to the state of the predominant pattern (SOM) in the > >> intellectual level post WW2 (absolutely explicitly). We are always > "In > >> Our Time". Do we have to go over this historical axis again Bo, I > >> thought we'd agreed there. > > > > I trust Platt's quote (my own digital LILA has collapsed from overuse > - > > abuse ;-) and Pirsig actually says THE before saying this. > > > > "What had happened since the end of World War I was > > that the intellectual level had entered the picture and > > had taken over everything. It was this intellectual level > > that was screwing everything up." > > > > Even worse if you postulate several intellectual levels, but I guess > you > > mean patterns. Still, this is disastrous as it turns the 4th. level > into > > some neutral (valueless) vessel that contains SOM and MOQ as > > different "intellectual patterns". That would be like life and death > inside > > the same level. > > > >> Just the usual despicable "Platteral shift" going on. Don't get drawn > >> into the dirty tricks Bo, you're above that. Apology in order for > >> calling me an animal too ;-) How about it Bo ? Ian > > > > You don't refrain from insults yourself regarding Platt, but I know he > > doesn't mind it the least and at time I think this discussion gets a > bit > > bland, everyone agreeing with the last honored speaker. > > > > Bo > > > >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:59 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > Platt, Steve, Horse and the whole menagerie. > >> > > >> > 25 Nov. > >> > > >> > Steve had said: > >> >> > Let's be clear, the MOQ does not make SOM the intellectual > level. > >> >> > Only the unnecessary and wrong-headed SOLAQI interpretation does > >> >> > this. The intellectual level of Pirsig's MOQ is the collection > of > >> >> > all intellectual patterns of value. > >> > > >> >> In Lila Pirsig wrote: > >> > > >> >> "What had happened since the end of World War I was that the > >> >> intellectual level had entered the picture and had taken over > >> >> everything. It was this intellectual level that was screwing > >> >> everything up." > >> > > >> >> Doesn't look to me like a "collection of all intellectual patterns > >> >> of value" is doing the screwing. Rather it seems clear that Pirsig > >> >> identifies the intellectual level with amoral SOM -- the modern > >> >> trance state. > >> > > >> >> I would go so far as to say that unless the intellectual level is > >> >> acknowledged to be the same as SOM, Pirsig's entire analysis of > our > >> >> societal problems and his proposed MOQ solution goes down the > >> >> toilet. > >> > > >> >> Then what have a got? Not much of value other than the fun of > >> >> philosophical debate. Maybe that's all we should expect, but I was > >> >> hoping for more. > >> > > >> > Wow, Platt's matter-of-fact style does much better than my > shouthing > >> > from mountains. I respect Steve's and Horse's defending the Faith, > >> > but Pirsig is about as vague as Jesus and as this quote shows he > >> > does regard the intellectual level as SOM ... except when asked > >> > directly when it again turns into "intellectual patterns" and the > >> > circle is closed. > >> > > >> > Nuff said > >> > > >> > Bo 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/
