Matt Fri March 12.
Bo before: > > You affirm my point that DMB's about MOQ's dynamic/static > > corresponding to James' pre-conceptual/conceptual schism > > is wrong. You have by the way made many good, > > SOL-supporting, observations of late, but I guess you'll > > rather be found dead than agreeing with me, thanks anyway. Matt: > Hey, steal what you want from me. Just don't assume I'm > resisting you because you're unfashionable. If I cared about > fashion, _I'd_ be more fashionable, but if you haven't noticed > I have my own problems. Wish you would be more "plain-spoken", not all these convoluted utterings. I don't steal from you just refer to the points which are "good" MOQ-talk. > Though I have to admit, I usually resist taking out articles of > faith--like becoming a Skutvikist--because I generally resist > taking out articles of faith. ??????????????? > I haven't followed any recent clarification of the disagreement > between you and Dave, but if his point is that Pirsig's dynamic/static > distinction matches with a pre-conceptual/conceptual distinction, then > you've got one strong strike against thinking it doesn't in Pirsig's > view-- there's strong evidence, via the notion of "pre-intellectual > cutting edge of experience," that that is exactly what Pirsig thinks. That the LILA author agrees with James, i.e.thinks DQ/SQ corresponds to "pre-conceptual/conceptual" we all know. But that the ZAMM author thinks so I oppose vehemently. If so why didn't he introduce language as the "intellectual" stage*) that necessarily follows the "pre-intellectual"?. No, he says that INTELLECT is the subject (aware of a tree) objects. I.e the S/O distinction!!! Inside the intellectual realm however it is obvious that the object with trunk, branches and leaves is not a "tree" until an English-speaking person comes along. > I think it's a bad idea, but that's a separate issue from what > Pirsig meant and thinks is a good and bad idea. "A separate issue" my foot, we discuss the MOQ don't we? OK, I know you will rather be found dead ....etc. but a little honesty would do.. *) Tellingly enough, he introduces language as intellec (manipulation of symbols) in "Lila's Child" when he had committed himself to the non- S/O intellect and by no means could back down. In the P.T. letter however he again opened for the intellect= SOM (no use speaking about the intellect before the Greeks) just enough for no one to be quite sure. Bodvar 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/md/archives.html
