Mati, this is also an excellent post.
On Jan 8, 2010, at 8:45 PM, KAYE PALM-LEIS wrote: > Ron and others, > >> Ron: >> Bo has no tolerence for anyone elses views which contradict his own >> what he has is blind persistence of his own views and beliefs which he >> asserts at every opportunity. I think you confuse the two. > > Mati: The issue is that Bo sincerely believes he has the tiger by the > tail, but others have different opinions. He asserts in the best way > he knows how to try to correct the mispreception of their own view of > intellect and others try to correct his view. Frankly I would never > had the stamina to share his perspective for as long. You might be > right perhaps it is his perseverance that should be better noted. > >> Ron: >> Read all of Platos works and you would find the same, the deconstruction >> of what we think we "know" discourses on the meaning of terms. > > Mati: I read with interest the Introduction about the translation and > interpretation of the Plato's symposium. I am clearly aware that > precise understanding of what Plato or any of the other great > philosophers have shared is a serious challenge of meaning of a > language long ago in a context that representative of that time. I > have thought about how our perspective from 2500 years after the fact > could possibly afford us the right to make some bold declarations such > as SOL today. Here I rely to some extent to Pirsig himself as Phedrus > who was better qualified to scrutinized those works and based on some > of the conclusions he makes about what he found in ZAMM. > >> Mati: >> I realize it seems to some totally nuts that a concept and value such >> as intellect did not magically assert itself until Aristotle's wrestle >> with the issue of reality and gives us the s/o split, however the act >> of consciously thinking, which some of you have proposed as intellect, >> is as old as the dawn of mankind. >> >> Ron: >> Thats because the distinction lies in the cultural meaning and >> understanding of the term. The s/o split is an assumption drawn >> from Aristotles work "Physics" by the thinkers of the middle ages >> during the decline of the Roman empire. "metaphysics" >> Aristotles lecture notes on first philosophy, his theory of meaning, >> is based on the syllogism in the face of a relativistic flux of >> experience. >> "Intellect" in the context of general human experience as a species >> is as old as the dawn of mankind, infact, it's the distiguishing >> characteristic that seperates our species from others. "Intellect" >> defines us as what we recognize as distinctly human. > > Mati: Point taken, and yes we have and understanding of SOM which > largely, I believed is credited to Pirsig (but certainly many other > have wrestled with the s/o split and intrepretation. Though when I > have read from other philosophers such as Dewey I note that he > wrestles with what we understand as SOM and intellect. Granted there > is issues of going from Aristotle to Prisig to Bo and thinking we are > going to understand intellect as a specific value pattern. Certainly > there is the risk that path that Bo is suggesting could be questioned > on the validity of what we think we know that happened 2500 years ago. > But I feel reasonable comfortable that the stone that was cast so > long ago as SOM has rippled to our shores to what we understand as > intellect. There is are times I sit and wonder if Bo has it all > wrong, every doubt and rational concern has been addressed to my > satisfaction with a sense of reason. I like to believe I have some > high standards to accept such a bold and controversial conclusion such > as SOL. Your point that intellect is as old as the dawn of mankind is > potentially misleading. Our use of language to sustain our social > values has been around since that dawn. Intelligence derived from > that development of the social level is what separates us from other > species and the development of intellect separates yet one step > beyound.. Again I allude to Pirsig letter to Paul which suggest that > intellect likely occurred around the time of the Early Greeks though > specific historical pinpointing is difficult according to him. Am I > missing something, your statement seems as odds with him. Perhaps > there is a level missing in which many feel this "thinking" as > intellect should be addressed, but I would suggest not. > > >> Mati: >> I will share from Pirsig letter to >> Paul Turner.... >> He says, ..... " and it seems to me the >> greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is >> confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no >> corresponding particular experience and which behave according to >> rules of their own." >> >> Ron: >> I think the key lies in the Pragmatic statement: >> "the greatest meaning that may be given" >> "meaning".....to the concept of the intellectual level. >> Which he asserts, is the origin of the meanings our >> culture holds today. > > Mati: But our culture today holds so many meanings both socially and > intellect(ually). You suggest the statement is Pragmatic, practical > to what end? Certainly not to clarifying what intellect is. Again my > concern is that your statement is way too broad to hold any true > meaning. If we agree that there are both social and intellect values > that are distinctively different then hows does your definition > exclude social values and for that matter anything we think of. > > >> Mati: >> I will share again that with the ancient Greeks something special >> happened. They questioned reality as never before. Thales, >> Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Anaxagoras and others >> questioned the nature of reality. They experimented with abstract >> ideas that tried to explain the world/reality as never before. >> Ron: >> This is quite an assumption, they are the only written records >> which our culture has found and they are rather limited >> who knows what was held in the library of alexandria that did >> not survive. Who knows what intellectual achievements the ancients >> held... certainly not you or any of us. > > Mati: Again you exercising a legitimate critism about what do we > really know about what these folks really had to say and what they > really thought. Maybe intellect as a value pattern existed before > there wasn't a language that truely could convey intellect, but I > doubt that. What we know is based on what little we do know. Maybe > Aristotle read something that lead him to s/o that was perhaps a well > established basis of understanding of reality. Then I think you could > make the assertion that perhaps that author was the father of > intellect. But just like Pirsig is the father of MoQ, we crown > Aristotle as father of SOM. There are historians who make there living > to provide us with the best understanding of who these people were and > what they thought. I have to put some trust in what they have to > offer under the research methodologies that guide them. I don't feel > that there is a conspiracy to misled us in what they say. Certainly I > won't be dedicating my life to learning ancient Greek texts to exact > the similar interpretation. So when I read or hear about there work I > try to interpret meaning using Bo's SOL and I find it a very useful > tool understand what is going on. > > >> Ron: >> If you and Bodvar actually read the complete works of Plato >> and Aristotles metaphysics, you may actually gain some insight >> into the pile of generalized assumptions you are making about their work. > > Mati: Perhaps in my life time I will, and perhaps I will find the > nugget of thinking that will sink the SOL ship. But the limited > amount I do read only seems to bolsters what Bo is trying to say. I > can't just come to this conclusion time and time again and completely > reject Bo's premise. I have been very open to the possiblity that Bo > could be wrong. But up to this limited point I don't see it. > >> The s/o split was created over thousands of years of misinterpretaion >> and assumptions which manifested in 19th century victorian concepts. > > Mati: Again the information we have is the best that we got. Perhaps > in the future there will be a better intrepretaion of these works but > until then I think we are obligated to use what we have to the best > end. > >> Ron: >> I suggest we all become alittle bit more well read on the subject if fist >> fights >> are to be avoided. >> >> I'll bring the wine > > Mati: That is what the drink is for, to relax our mood and help us be > more be more at ease. However if there is a book you recomend please > let me know. > > Sincerely, > Mati > _______________________________________________________________________ Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars... 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/
