Marsha, And all I did was comment on it was a branch of philosophy that examines explanations.
-Ron ----- Original Message ---- From: MarshaV <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:43:49 AM Subject: Re: [MD] Bo vs. Bob Ron, I cannot comment about Aristotle's definition of metaphysics; that is true, and I didn't comment on Aristotle's definition of anything, but offered a simple, modern definition: met·a·phys·ics - Philosophy The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality. Marsha On Jul 17, 2010, at 11:25 AM, X Acto wrote: > Marsha, > Then you can't make a comment one way or the other > about it can you? > > -Ron > > > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: MarshaV <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:08:17 AM > Subject: Re: [MD] Bo vs. Bob > > > Ron, > > I am not much concerned with Aristotle > since it would be too easy to translate ancient > greek by modern points-of-view. Scholars are > still arguing what is the proper interpretation. > > > Marsha > > > > On Jul 17, 2010, at 10:56 AM, X Acto wrote: > >> Metaphysics >> >> that which comes after physics >> >> regarding the complete works of Aristotle. >> as it sat in the library of Alexandria. >> >> Aristotle called it a collection of class notes >> concerning the theory of explanation. >> >> a misnomer >> >> on a collection of works most philosophers have not read. >> >> so how can one make a comment about any of it. >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ---- >> From: MarshaV <[email protected]> >> To: [email protected] >> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 1:27:33 AM >> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo vs. Bob >> >> >> 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 >>>3 >>> 3 >>> 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 >> >> >> >> >> 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 > > > > > 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 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
