DMB, Bo and others, dmb says: Even more importantly, I've discovered that there are more than just a few anti-SOM thinkers within philosophy and within the academic community. Mysticism is much tougher to sell there but Bo isn't buying it either and it's pretty clear to me that this is the true source of his distortions. The failure to take that crucial element into the picture is exactly what has him thinking that the distinction between thought and DQ is the same as the distinction between subjectivity and objectivity. Mati: I would interested in what Bo would have to say about that. DMB, Also, I think its a bit unfair to characterize academic standards as some kind of bullying tactic. I realize that goes beyond your complaint about bully pulpits. I have no doubt that these standards can sometimes act as a road block to ideas that later come to be seen as perfectly legitimate and that this is a genuine problem but I also think that we need academic standards to guard against all kinds of nonsense and more generally against intellectual incompetence.
Mati: Ahhh.... the standards. I had talked about creating such standards to get to the bottom of defining intellect when I was in Liverpool. I realize that Bodvar’s approach might be a seen as a distortion, but again personally it speaks to me a truth that provides a clarity in understanding intellect rather than a distortion. (I realize that I am in the minority, but my personal integrity and commitment to what makes sense to me does not allow me to quickly dismiss SOL until the fat lady of reason stops singing or Bodvar can't defend (in my mind) the legitimate questions, whichever comes first. Believe me, for the sake of not ostracizing you and others it would be far easier to just to let SOL go its own way, but I can't.) I sincerely believe that how Bodvar understands intellect is the way it works. The idea that SOM is the basis or father of all that is intellect and all of the ideas that have been born out or a fallout of intellect (SOM), including various aspects of mysticism as one example. Again I am not looking to create disgruntle friends of MOQ but rather work together to get to the bottom of this intellect mess. And I wouldn't go as say that Bodvar created the mess as being "intellectually incompetent" but rather he has turned on a legitimate light to the general problem, as I see it, with defining intellect itself. I would suggest that intellectual competence would require an illumination of differences and commonalities and building from there verses outright dismissal. (Yes I know that Bodvar is guilty of his share of dismissals, that it in itself is concerning, but that doesn't dismiss the possibility that he could be right.) Many have suggested that SOM is in fact one form of intellect, but that there are others forms as well. Bodvar, I believe, suggests that SOM is the basis of intellect, and as he has stated, ever last bit of it. But one of the fallouts of SOM, I believe is that SOM rose colored glasses sees a reality that allows many of us to believe SOM is only one of many forms of intellect. Granted there is the profound possibility the same could be said about SOL creating its own rose colored glasses, but I don't see that as likely. In ZMM, Pirsig finds the that we are all wearing the SOM glasses, and that in itself creates the distortion. The problem is what do we really see when we take the glasses off, and what does it mean. Pirsig was able to find a new meaning in what he saw without SOM and able to give us the clarity of MOQ view of understanding the world. The problem now seems that when we wrestle with the issue of intellect, I believe, some inadvertently put the SOM glasses on again, perhaps out of intellectual habit with a remaining distortion. I don't “know” if Bodvar got it right but deep down I believe he is right. This is not out of pride or wanting to stir the pot but rather what I call an intuitive intellect that senses he is onto something. There are times I think that someone is close to finding the proverbial Achilles Heal of SOL, then I study it and conclude it not. I know that Bodar's tenacity on this issue has it's corollary, our exasperation. But I see that as a blessing rather than a curse. I know I have privately shared with Bo there are times I feel like Sancho Panza in Don Quixote. I'll be damned if those windmills don't look like SOM dragons. :-) dmb says:Oh, yea. My discrediting brush inadvertently tarred you as well as Bo. Sorry, but the archives (and sincerity) won't allow me to take it back. In fact, I very much want my objections to be on record because I think Bo misleads people, especially new-comers as Dan pointed out. Mati: But to be fair Bo believes that it is SOM that does the misleading, not him. And for whatever reason I see and understand that. However MD is not only a venue of thoughts regarding MOQ but in addition to the personalities behind those thoughts. That I believe is the richness of these discussions. DMB: By the way, it's really great to hear from you and Dan. I wish both of you guys would post more often. Mati: Thanks for the encouragement, however posting is a most exhausting mental exercise and I find that I can only do it for a couple of posts and then need a sabbatical. :-) Personally I don't know how you guys do it. DMB: Legitimate philosophical discussion dies where there's no possibility of persuasion. Mati: I bet Bo would agree with you there! DMB: In this case, Bo seems quite impervious to any argument. Even when it comes to the quotes of relevant philosophers like Pirsig, Dewey and James, he dismisses it as SOM simply because they're read in University courses when in fact they are all quite opposed to SOM. Mati: Yeah I see your point there. But what I wonder about it the intellectual impact of SOM being the dominate force since its conception. It's impact has given our lifetime a tremendous positive blessings, it also has a more detrimental side as we all know. Yes dismissals based on SOM can be a broad broom that might seem out of line. However the question remains if SOM dominance has been so pervasive it also requires a critical analysis of some of these philosophers in a SOM context. It would be a real interesting idea if James and Dewey were to come back to this time and read Pirsig and Bodvar and see what they would say. When I read Dewey I often think of this. What is clear is that their sincerity in what they understood of the world was their passion and their gift. It has allowed us to move a bit higher on the Metaphysical Mountain. DMB: Anyway, I don't want to discredit Bo as a person. But his ideas about the MOQ? I think they really ought to be discredited and I won't apologize for trying. Mati: No apology necessary, it is part of the process until we find a better one. I guess a final thought. MD is about a diversity of thoughts, it is not designed to build consensus or a foundation of understanding. In that vain Bo's is one stream of thought that I personally at this point of time believe is correct, even in an MD format. I entertain the possibility that he is also wrong, but have not concluded so yet. But that is the thing about philosophy, seldom does a metaphysical idea latch on as an absolute, if Bo's SOL is right it might be rare phenomenon. That I know is a long shot, but it wouldn't be the first time I bet on a long shot and won. Warmest regards on a cold evening, Mati 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/
