On Jun 29, 2010, at 10:43 AM, Arlo Bensinger wrote: > Marsha, and I think Mary, have perhaps the best intentions in supporting the > SOL revision, but that is one trapped back in the classic-romantic > distinction of ZMM. That is, "intellectuals are squares", unable to see and > appreciate beauty and harmony and art and groove. So Marsha has to convince > herself that, despite her involvement in an online philosophy discussion, she > is "not an intellectual" (if she isn't, who is?). So where Pirsig's intention > was a "root expansion of rationality", to provide a means to expand > rationalities view to include both classic and romantic, to correct > intellect's SOM-induced "blindspot", they remain convinced that intellect > only leads to dry, artless Professors (and not Mary Annes or Gingers).
Hello Arlo, Marsha processes all kinds of patterns. She processes millions of patterns in a single day, some intellectual, some not. I am not an intellectual; I am not a single definition of anything. I'm not even a grandmother. Can you even consider what it is not to attach to such superficial self-identification. I'm this. I'm that. What utter ridiculousness! You are not stretching far enough. Think no-self. Or maybe self as a verb? Marsha ___ 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
