Ron and others, > Ron: > It most certainly does Our definition of what the term "intellectual" > means is central to his thesis, and that origin is in Greek history > distinguished by deductive reasoning, analytic, syllogism and logic, > what western cultures understanding is predicated on. It's useful > in terms of the common understanding of it's meaning, useful > in the explaination of his 4 levels of static quality, useful in making > the distinctions in its fallacies, logic traps and limitations of this common > understanding.
Mati: Deriving meaning from experience has been around since man beginning. That was the in part the basis for all religions, to provide meaning for the world around us and our questions that failed to have answers. Religions used, some might suggest, a false logic that mystical being greater than our existence was responsible for all that we experience. The ten commandments are a tremendous accomplishment that utilized reasoning and analytic consideration of the social fabric it was intended to serve. Again you seem to wish to ignore Pirsig's more recent letter to Paul that suggests that intellect likely came into being around the time of the early Greeks? Again I point out, "deductive reasoning, analytic, syllogism and logic" hallmarks of what you consider as intellect "existed" before the Greeks, however it served the master at the social level. After the s/o split it serves only itself and mankind, not beholden to the social level. > Mati: > 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. > > Ron: > It excludes it by exercising meaning and definition, easy as looking up the > term > "intellectual". Mati: My parents gave me a dictionary at the age of five for Christmas, Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictionary. It is old and tattered and a prized possession. Heck I will do you one better and look up intellect. "The power of the mind to grasp ideas and relations, and to exercises a dispassionate reason and rational judgement; reason" Before you do a cartwheel in the name of "got you" let me suggest a couple of things. First as definitions go it is ok as a definition of a general word used in our language but for a definiton, in terms of a discussion of defining a metaphysical level in Pirsig's it has 2 immediate short falls. First I suggest that the dictionary was written (1970) before MoQ was published (not that one published today wouldn't say the same thing) and clearly a definition with metaphysical implications would be subordinate to SOM or its fallout. Secondly, note it talks about "Dispassionate reason" separating the biological function of emotions. It does not separate the values or ideas that origin is either social or intellect. It takes all ideas, social or intellectual because there was no other consideration, reality defined in 1970 only had only a SOM basis, there was no other basis. One level will dominates the next and will use the value of the lower level to serve its own purpose, in terms of intellect that includes all the social values so long it can dominate it by reason. My hope is that we can accept Pirsig premise that there are four distinctive separate levels. It is that this point that SOM is arrested for the purposes of a greater understanding of the world offered by MOQ, otherwise we have SOM on some quasi steroids that looks good but does nothing different than the old SOM. > Ron: > Useful within a context, which is just re asserting what Pirsig is already > saying > save that SOL makes the same blunder as SOM...that it takes itself as THE > truth..Aristotle never had such a theory of reality, or truth in fact he > questioned the > use of engaging in such an activity, his focus was on meaning ..not > any notion of reality as it was understood as relative and > changing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning Mati: SOL, SOM, MOQ are all truths. Very few things are absolute truths, and certainly metaphysical truths are not absolute. Metaphysical truths are the best handle on truth we have until something better comes along. Pirsig in ZAMM challenges the assertion that SOM has a handle on defining all reality by throwing the Quality monkey wrench into the works. In Lila he gives us MOQ a new basis by which the truth of reality is improved. Its weak point, IMHO, is Pirsig defining of intellect in which Bo's offers SOL as a fix, one that I think works. As to your point about Aristotle you are probably right, I am guessing he was just looking for a better mean of understanding the world rationally and not to unseat the social level as a dominate force. By doing so he inadvertent found the s/o stepping stone to the next level. > Ron: > Certainly for they are using the same common understanding of the terms > plus the belief in an absolute/ultimate truth/reality that you share with them > it fits the model already in your head and as Pirsig points out one then > sees what they understand in the way they understand it and as James > notes that new ideas are grafted onto old concepts and are kept on the > basis of how well they are adapted to an existing body of beliefs. Mati: Heck I will again do you one better with the great philosopher, Simon and Garfunkel, "A man chooses to see what he wants to see and disregards the rest." (The Boxer) I have been painfully aware of this point. I have over the past, hmmm.., almost ten years been so aware of so many folks who have been critical of Bo's premise, including Pirsig. I have wondered when Bo and I will get our excommunication communication from the MOQ family for outright heresy. But I believe that Bo has found the foothold idea that bolsters MOQ to the next level. I also with advancing age of 43 or 44 (I lost count after 21) know that I don't know everything and perhaps this SOL idea could be infact a stupid goose chase. But also I have learn we need to find ideas that enhance our understanding about life and its meaning. For almost the past ten years SOL has done that for me. > > Mati: > 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. > > Ron: > Thats because Bo is right within a context but wrong within another > in reference to Pirsigs work. The parts he does not understand > do not fit with his model he ridicules and throws out, dismisses it > as foolishness and countless other ad hominems. Bo has a very anayltical > logical "intellectual" mind and simply can not accept a system > with out it satisfying these conditions, he believes them to be the > fundemental constituants of reality. Mati: You could be right. There was once an American Congressman who offered advice to a new Congressman, to "never suggest you know the motivations of others." I think Bo found the framework of MoQ as impressive as all of us. But early on it was clear that Intellect was a point to be reckoned with. It seems that Pirsig himself struggled with this and in his letter to Paul tries to provide some reconciliation. Interesting enough I think Pirsig himself has fallen to the issue you suggest Bodvar is guilty of, trying to defining "a system with out it satisfying these conditions, he believes them to be the fundamental constituants of reality." I have had the privilege to meet, listen and read Pirsig. The problem is related to where Pirisig sits as the engineer/architec of this impressive metaphysical framework called MOQ. It stands before us in vast sea of knowledge and understanding of mankind. Few things can make that claim. But there is a flaw in the understanding of intellect. I believe to some degree he acknowledges it. The problem is what solution has he to offer. I think we have not considered how risky of a situation this has been for Pirsig. Potentially what he offers for an explanation could sink the MOQ boat. To narrow of an answer and potentially many might not believe or dismiss MOQ all together. To broad of a definition than MOQ is watered down to mean nothing. In his letter to Paul Turner he shoot down the middle of the road and gives us, "the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no corresponding particular experience and which behave according to rules of their own." He tried to play it safe but I think fell short. But here is his saving grace he writes, "Perhaps you can pass all this along to the Lila Squad with the caveat that this is not a Papal Bull, as some would have it, or just plain bull, as others will see it, but merely another opinion on the subject that it is hoped will help." I think it has help in the respect that gives the opportunity to share our opinions and perhaps gives us licence to think and improve on what he has offered. > Ron: > There is nothing wrong with the translation or the information but > the assumptions which are drawn from them from a limited > point of view. When we build our arguement and our personal > understanding and world view on second, third and even fourth > hand assumptions based on limited points of view on second hand > interpretations, we build them on general assumptions. Mati: So then all assumptions are built on a house of cards? I think though we are all are guilty on building on general assumptions. I take your point well that we all can do better in building our understanding and broading our understanding. But also too I think there are times when we find a piece of experience or knowledge that fits perfectly in the puzzle of understanding life we need not ignore it. I think it is worth examining it, studying it, and see what we learn. I welcome all criticisms and looking at the way the puzzle piece might not fit or how to make the piece fit better or .... maybe there is a better fitting piece. > Ron: > If we are going to talk metaphysics I suggest and I'm being sincere, > that we all read Aristotles metaphysics. Could'nt hurt.. Well this morning I found my copy I picked up a couple of years ago. I will give it a gander. Thanks, 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/
