Hi dmb ..... who are these ignorant people (who continue to ignore it) ? You remake my point .... it is a choice we make to terminate the debate .... to choose a definition of "intellect" over and above SOMism. (In logical rational discourse - its interminable - as evidenced by the decade of failure to agree, the debate continues. Despite "saying" there is no debate, many continue to use SOMism rationale in their logical arguments.)
It's a kind of hypocrisy. Saying, lets agree that intellect has a definition broader than SOMism, but when we have intellectual debates, let's stick with the GOF narrow SOMist idea of intellect (subjects and objects related by logic) because that is what is expected by a mainstream academic philosophical discourse. (And its a well documented "western" "intellectual" disease - strangely enough the disease for which Pirsig was seeking a cure.) But thanks for also agreeing again, with my agreeing with Dan, that this is a sad state of affairs. You said Dan "nailed it". I said "precisely". You say tomatoes, I say tomatoes. I'm not the one disagreeing. Ian On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 at 11:02 PM, david buchanan <[email protected]>wrote: > > Ian said: > ... And YES, in that level we are in some sense suspended in SOM language, > UNLESS we do that reaching out. > ... Logically the SOMism vs MOQ-Intellect debate IS interminable - that's > the point. It is only broken by deliberate choice to reach out to expanded > MoQish rationality - one not dependent entirely on those mental constructs > we call subjects and objects. > > > dmb says: > The point is that the debate is interminable?! > > I think that's exactly what Dan and I find to be so freaking frustrating. > The "debate" should have terminated a long time ago because Bo's "insight" > is nonsense. Pirsig thinks, "this conclusion undermines the MOQ," and that > it "sounds like a dismissal" and he sees "a lowering of the quality of the > MOQ itself if you follow this path." > > What is debatable about that? How can any reasonable person maintain this > conclusion in the face of such direct and explicit evidence? I guess that's > why Bo has to take it "even to the point of claiming Robert Pirsig is wrong > about his own metaphysics," as Dan put it. > > But we should also reject the "insight" that SOM and the MOQ's > intellectual level are one and the same because it doesn't make any sense. > If that were true, then it would be impossible to think in any other terms. > It would be impossible to oppose SOM with any other conceptions but that is > exactly what the MOQ does indeed. There is a mountain of evidence that many > thinkers have opposed SOM, some of which I've presented here already. Don't > that prove that SOM and intellect are NOT identical? I think so. > > I think Dan nailed it. "What I find both sad and frustrating is that > Robert Pirsig has directly addressed these concerns and yet so many people > continue to find ways to ignore it. And no, I am not jumping on the 'pick > on Marsha' bandwagon in saying that though I do think her continued support > of Bo's 'insight' tends to put her in a somewhat dubious light." > > > Motorcycle maintenance is a miniature study in the art of rationality. How > could Pirsig's project even be possible if SOM were one and the same with > intellect itself? The art of amoral objectivity? The meaningless, lifeless, > hollow voice of art? Bo's equation is a hellish trap in the very thing that > blinds the intellect to Quality. Ugh! It's the WORST idea ever. > > Please, let the "debate" terminate permanently. > > > > > > > > > > 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
