Ron, You finished your post with "so how can one make a comment about any of it."
Try using the rules of grammar if you expect to be properly understood. Marsha On Jul 17, 2010, at 11:50 AM, X Acto wrote: > 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 ___ 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
