When someone starts to question another's motives, you know he has lost the argument.
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Arlo Bensinger <[email protected]> wrote: > [Andre] > I apologize for having been abrupt and terse Marsha when you asked for full > quotes plus explanation. A summary you will find in Anthony's PhD. More > stuff, as said, in LILA and the LC. > > [Arlo] > In the years I've been here, this impasse has been insurmountable. What I > find interesting is that no other "level" is so assaulted, so denigrated, so > demonized, as the "awful" intellectual level. By casting it as "just SOM", > it is forever condemned as an "obstacle" in an otherwise clean trajectory to > harmony. Rather than expanding rationality, as was Pirsig's goal, we have > his highest moral (static) level reduced to a incurable disease in the > silent, harmonic landscape of "inorganic-biological-social" bliss. > > What has been interesting over the years is to witness the psychology > behind this. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Bo's SOLAQI seems to > be an attempt to place "Western Culture" as the morally dominant worldview, > and reduces all non-Western worldviews to "social". That is, "we" (Western > cultures) are "intellect", non-Western cultures are "just social", and so > our superiority can be claimed. Platt, on the ironic other hand, demands > intellect be reduced to SOM as a way of causally dismissing "intellect" as > broken or inferior, it becomes just another "Boogeyman" in an otherwise > tiring and cliche-ridden anti-intellectual crusade. Marsha, although this > will likely draw her ire, has probably the best intentionality at dismissing > "intellect" to promote a more artistic, "merry prankster" approach to life. > What I think she misses is that it was the malady of a subject-object > primacy within intellect that the MOQ was attempting to cure, it is an > expansive philosophy, not a condemnational one. It is a uniting of > classical/romantic approaches, not a dismissal of one and a championing of > the other. The Buddha rests just as comfortably in semiotics as in > gardening. > > But then my own psychology says intellect is worth saving, there is a great > value in it, and I think Pirsig's placement of it as the highest moral order > shows he feels similarly. The MOQ is not a "burn down the universities" > philosophy, it is a "reclaim the universities" philosophy. It does not > condemn "science", it saves it. It does not dismiss rationality, but it > expands its power. As DMB pointed out, the goal of the MOQ is beautiful > science and intelligent art. The SOL view offers us neither. > > > > > 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 > 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
