[Mark]
Could you give me an example of an abstract symbol that has no
corresponding particular experience?
[Arlo]
"Two". Or "two-ness" if you prefer.
[Mark]
Please do not quote Pirsig, provide me your own interpretation.
[Arlo]
You seem really hung-up on the term "interpretation". I am not quite
sure why that is. With others it appears to be way of achieving
legitimacy or authority in reluctance to forming disagreement.
[Mark]
I do not know where you are coming from, it doesn't seem coherent and
Adrie would say.
[Arlo]
All you know is that I said I agree with Pirsig. And from that you
conclude I lack coherence? Is that a criticism of Pirsig?
Like I keep saying to Marsha, if you feel Intellect=SOM is more
coherent than Pirsig's Intellect!=SOM, could you explain why? Does it
have more explanatory power? Does it provide a better analysis of evolution?
Pirsig's "goal" in the MOQ was to expand the nature of rationality,
not to condemn it. Intellect=SOM condemns rationality ipso facto. Do
you feel your Intellect=SOM points us towards a better solution than
Pirsig was after?
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
