Ian and Andrè
27 Nov. Ian wrote:
as
> One serious comment ... where you (almost) conclude.
> "Maybe we need to completely rethink our intellectual processing. They
> do include all levels."
> I'll say ! The point is some HAVE embraced the MoQ and completely
> rethought our mental processing to something more than SOMist
> intellect.
What Andrè says is a bit cryptic and Ian's interpretation not much
clearer, one way seen it looks as if he concludes that "mental
processing" is the 4th. level and it can process (contain) more than
SOM. If so it's wrong, but on the other hand ".. rethought our mental
processing to something more than SOMist intellect" has a quality ring
to it.
In SOM the term "intellect" simply means mental processing ...
whatever goes on in our mind. In MOQ the said level is the value of (in
this case) the distinction between a mental realm and a corporeal one
- the S/O distinction in all its countless forms) Can't we get this clear,
like Platt who comes over loud and clear:
"Unless the intellectual level is SOM, the trance state of
today's "intellectuals," Pirsig's analysis of our cultural problems
collapses. Then the MOQ would be a philosophic non-starter".
"Intellect as SOM" means that its S/O is seen as reality's ground and
from those premises the DQ/SQ is neglected, SOMist's prefer the
Quality/MOQ one because this better fits SOM's template. OK, I
possibly complicate Platt's sentence. After many years of political
controversy Platt has become some bogyman for many, but he has
always been a staunch MOQ adherer.
Ian goes on:
> The problem is for those who stick with SOMist intellectual reasoning
> in futile attempts to better define components of the MoQ, not for
> those who have made that mental leap. (Clearly that mental leap cannot
> be well "defined" SOMistically, even MoQistically, by definition. But
> it is no more a matter of "faith" than any other metaphysical choice
> ... it's a choice to embrace the pragmatism of real experience.
> Remember I made this choice before I'd even heard of Pirsig, so I'm
> very sensitive to the gratuitous "faith" jibe from Bo ... which was
> quite out of character for Bo.)
"..SOM-ist intellectual reasoning" means seeing "intellect= reasoning
itself" and from these premises it surely is difficult to make the leap to
"intellect as SOM" However, I think this transformation can be defined
MOQ-cally (it must be) From the SOM however it's almost
inconceivable (look to Ham). So Ian, what I meant by "defending the
faith" was not the said leap, rather sticking to the passages that hide
the necessity of such a leap.
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/
