Greetings, Seems to me the subject line is a setup!
Marsha p.s. met·a·phys·ics - Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. On Jul 16, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Matt Kundert wrote: > > Hi John, > > John said: > The thing is, we're born at the top of the mountain. All the > paths (intellectual games and religions) lead DOWNWARD, > away from the top of the mountain from that point. > > Matt: > That is an interesting gestalt switch. I think it's _misleading_, > but that's because I think the kind of "back to origins!" > rhetoric that is latent in almost every religious and intellectual > tradition is misguided (the kind of rhetoric that has us talking > about how DQ the baby is). What about this: being born is > like falling from the sky, out of nowhere, to the ground. > Being intellectual is climbing that mountain, or building that > Tower of Babel, trying to get back to what you imagine as > the origins. The misleading bit of the very traditional Fall > Story is that there is somewhere to get back to. I think the > better part of 2500 years of Western philosophy has taught > me that there's no there there. The climb up the mountain is > real, as is the process of climbing into a culture (the length > of the "fall"), but there is no heaven (which has its parallel in > the Eastern notion of Enlightenment) where you completely > evacuate your connection to "fallen" life, the world. I think > that's just a specific kind of effect created, like everything > else, from a specific kind of connection to the world. > > John said: > As far as the point that intellect = SOM, I agree completely > with Bo. That's just the definition of the term and the > metaphysical reality of the concepts. Intellect is only half > the evolved human consciousness, however, and Pirsig > calling the 4th level "intellectual" was due to Pirsig's > particular blind spot - the one that Phaedrus hated and > overthrew in ZAMM. > >> From my perspective today, (and I'd claim from the snip of > the Oxford DVD that Mary shared, Pirsig's as well) It should > have been called something indicating the > Intellectual/Artistic continuum and perhaps we wouldn't > have suffered so much conflict and strife in our attempt at > making this map back up the mountain. > > Because Intellect IS SOM. Make no mistake about that. > > Matt: > Might you more systematically deploy the kinds of > definitions you are using for your terms. Because, > argumentatively speaking, you beg the question about > whether intellect is SOM or not when you define it that > way. The obvious response is, "Well, of course 'intellect is > SOM' if you _define_ it that way. What if you don't?" > Which means we need to talk about what parts of reality > are being picked out by our terms, and then whether they > fit together in the specified kind of way (and then whether > Pirsig also thinks they fit together in the specified kind of > way). > > For example, do you differentiate between a > "subject/object distinction" and a "subject/object > metaphysics"? That'd be a good place to start. And then, > "how do you define metaphysics and the performance of > that activity (if it is an activity)?" > > You seem to be saying that you wish the levels had been > named Inorganic/Biological/Social/Consciousness, with > the top level broken into, roughly, Classic and Romantic, > as Pirsig had it in ZMM. Right? If that is so, then--moving > to Pirsig interpretation--you'd need to defend the notion > that in ZMM (or, in some other complicated inferential > pattern based on what he's said), Pirsig defined "classic" > as "SOM." That doesn't strike me as true, but I haven't > read ZMM in a long while (and have no complex > interpretational pattern on hand). The interpretation of > "the S/O distinction as classic" strikes me as decent, but > I'd need to know more about what you mean by > "metaphysics," and how you differentiate (or relate) > Pirsig's enemy in ZMM (dialectic) to his enemy in Lila > (SOM), and both to how you perceive a reconstruced, > I've-successfully-defeated-my-enemy version of any of > these items (i.e., are you saying there's no difference > between SOM before and after any critique of it?). > > These, I think, might be some of confusions that haunt > appreciation of what ideas hide in the slogan > "intellect=SOM." > > Matt > > _________________________________________________________________ > The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3 > 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
