dmb says: 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.
And you quote Pirsig (ZMM p 344); "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). Andre: Hi David, I am listening at the moment to Philip Glass' 'Satyagraha' . What you are quoting here is revealing to me. I am/was convinced that Pirsig said the opposite somewhere ..something like...before Homer, 'when the subject/object distinction did not exist'...or something along those lines...must look it up, go through both ZMM and Lila. If I find no contradiction to this statement my understanding of the MoQ will make a paradigm shift. But questions and clarifications will follow... Ahh, shit, oh well, 'such is life', as Ned Kelly said before they dropped him (with a rope around his neck). Thanks David! Regards Andre 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/
