On 10 Jul 2010 at 15:34, X Acto wrote: > > Platt: > > Not sure what you have in mind, but if you mean that value transcends SOM > > intellect I agree. > > > > Ron: > > This is where the interpretive factor gets kinda sticky. If one takes the >tack > > > > of > > SOM= the intellectual level, then no. Because it can't. It contradicts it's >own > > > > > assertion. > > SOM is the highest static good and the four levels is all there is. If one > does > > take that value transcends the intellectual level then all sorts of twisted > > rationalized arguements arise to support this assertion. It becomes > > indestinguishable > > from religous rationalized arguements. It becomes a destroyer of the > > intellectual level. > > It seeks to kill all intellectual patterns. The highest good mind you per >SOL. > > The intellect commits suicide looking to transcend to some rationalized state > > thats is indefinable. Sounds like a religion. > > [Platt] > > Well then you're going to have to deal intellectually with DQ which is > indefinable. Does acknowledging the existence of that creative force destroy > intellectual patterns? Does Pirsig rely on some religious-type miracle to > round > > out his metaphysics? > > What say you? > > > Ron: > SOL seems to answer "yes".
[Platt] You say otherwise? Ron: I believe Pirsig says otherwise. [Platt] What do you think Pirsig means by "divine" in the following quote?: "Finally, though it may be argued that a metaphysics that incorporates a central term that isn't defined (i.e. Dynamic Quality) isn't a real metaphysics, it can also be argued that the strength of the MOQ is its ability to incorporate the indeterminate divine within a coherent and logical paradigm." (Ltr to McWatt) My dictionary defines "divine" as: "of, like, or from a god." 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
