Bodvar said:Language certainly existed as a social pattern, but it was NOT "..turned into a rational philosophical distinction" (whatever that means).
Andre replied: Hi Bodvar, this "..turned into a rational philosophical distinction" can this be the process whereby the dialectical mode of reasoning developed itself from the rhetoric. (Pirsig is clear that rhetoric came before dialectic). And thereby giving itself an 'intellectual' status (of truth seeking rather than good seeking)? dmb says:Rhetoric comes before dialectic and mythos comes before logos, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the subject-object distinction, the distinction Bo equates with the intellect. As part of my counter argument, I'm saying that the subject-object distinction is older than the intellect and that intellect inherited it from the older level, the mythos. "Thus, in cultures whose ancestry includes ancient Greece, one invariably finds a strong subject-object differentiation because the grammar of the old Greek mythos presumed a sharp natural division of subjects and predicates. In cultures such as the Chinese, where subject-predicate relationships are not rigidly defined by grammar, one finds a corresponding absence of rigid subject-object philosophy." (ZAMM, chapter 28) Just in terms of common sense, the monster-slaying heroes of legend and myth were displaying this dualism for centuries before Plato was born. It wasn't invented by intellect nor is intellect it's exclusive home. It's seen in Western philosophies because it's an outgrowth of the Western mythos. So this not only shows that the dualism extends back into the social level, it also shows that non-SOM intellectual philosophies can and do exist. ...C'mon gents. If the SOL theory was like a cat and had nine lives, it would still be dead by now. dmb said to Bodvar: In effect, Pirsig does say that DQ is pre-conceptual even back in ZAMM. Bodvar replied : He does not "in effect" say that. You want to make ZAMM a conceptual mind-theory about the real experience (the Q-evels). This is the SOM that the MOQ is supposed to trash. dmb says:Okay, thanks to Andre we know Pirsig didn't just say it "in effect". He said so explicitly, using very similar terms... 'He simply meant that at the cutting edge of time, before an object can be distinguished, there must be some kind of nonintellectual awareness, which he called awareness of Quality. ..Reality is always the moment of vision before the intellectualisation takes place. There is no other reality. This preintellectual reality is what Phaedrus felt he had properly identified as Quality' (ZMM p 241) Oh, that poor, poor cat. I'm kicking a dead cat. Thanks, dmb _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Discover 10 secrets about the new Windows Live. http://windowslive.com/connect/post/jamiethomson.spaces.live.com-Blog-cns!550F681DAD532637!7540.entry?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t2_ugc_post_022009 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/
