OK Bo, so it's about what that "mental leap" is. My response in the other thread is probably a more productive place to pick up on "and Ian's response isn't much clearer" .... I'm still working at this.
(BTW Platt has not been a bogey-man for at least 3 years. Took a while to work out exactly what he was; he's an ignoramus pure and simple. He's still the only person on MD ... or any discussion forum .... I see in that light. Plenty of pains in the neck, but only one ignoramus. I'd just leave Platt out of this, if you want to you and I to make progress.) Ian On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 5:41 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/ > 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/
