Ron, The only opinion of my interpretation that could move me would be that of Mr. Pirsig, and he has not stated an objections.
Marsha -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of MarshaV Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 8:56 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of X Acto Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2009 7:51 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MD] [MD} The relativity of the MoQ Marsha to Bo: If you want me to reread part of ZMM or LILA, at least point to a chapter. In this recent book I read on the pre-Socratic sophists, it verified you rational/irrational split. Before Plato and Aristotle all was in relationship to social level and multiple truths were quite possible. Only with Aristotle did the either/or become rational and all else irrational. Even now Ron, silly boy, accuses me of being irrational as if he doesn't understand I see that as a sign of intelligence. And I have been quite clear at confirming that I understand the Intellectual Level to represent the subject/object split. For the moment, I'm wondering if the problem is not rooted in the self/object duality. While the subjective vales are allegedly missing in the Intellectual Level, what of the illusionary self. This 'self' is what Buddhism so adequately addresses, and is the most difficult for the West to consider, imho. The quality event creates both self and object even if it is within an intellectual patterned event. The self becomes an existing abstract 'thinking being' that is manipulated with the rest of the patterns. Do you think it would be worth giving a little thought to 'self' versus 'subjective values'? Ron to Marsha: I am a silly boy, and I simply do not agree with either of you. I did'nt mean that you are irrational, and if I used that term I used it incorrectly in regard to what I mean. I mean that your statements and arguements seldom have any sort of consistancy in meaning. I think, to assume that s/o is THE intellectual level is kinda like assuming english is THE language of intellect. As I have said, many many times in the past, Bo' assertions are relavant to western culture, but to assume western cultural values are universal, is making a dire mistake in my opinion. I feel its culturaly chauvanistic not to mention anthropomorphic. Marsha: I still agree with Bo that the Intellectual Level is the where patterns are concerned with the objectification of abstract symbols, and I do not feel uncomfortable that you, Ron, or even Steve, disagrees with me. Can you supply an Intellectual static pattern of value that is not subject/object oriented??? 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/
