Hi Andre,
On Mon, Feb 24, 2014 at 12:44 AM, Andre <[email protected]> wrote: > John: > > "Things beyond" do not compete, they dominate. > > Andre: > Or they do not. And this 'domination' is not characterized by anything? I > mean, it just sits there doing nothing but 'dominate'? There is constant > competition to dominate John... at all levels. > > J: I agree there is competition at all levels. I do not agree there is competition between the levels. I certainly don't see, for instance, how inorganic and organic patterns can in any way compete. But rather than trying to support Pirsig by quoting Pirsig, why can't you support Pirsig with real, experiential examples of what you say? Where on earth has any intellectual pattern, all by itself, competed with a pure social pattern? Ideas don't compete - people with ideas compete and people are a combination of all the levels, not just isolated intellect. An intellectual is not an intellect. > John: > ...but intellect alone does nothing but analyze and philosophize. > > Andre: > The entire scientific endeavor has turned into an analytical philosophy? > > J: I think it's much worse than that, if you're speaking historically. The entire analytical philosophy has been reduced to a mere science. > John: > There are societies which hold intellect as a very high value and there > are societies that hold "the will of allah" as a very high value and these > societies can be seen as intellect vs. society because that's the labels on > the flags they fly. But this is not the same as intellectual forces > struggling with social forces -... > > Andre: > They are in conflict with them John. Intellectual patterns are in conflict > with any notion of unquestioned (social/religious) dogma be it god, allah, > intelligent design...you name it. It's a battle and an ongoing battle. In > my previous post I gave plenty of examples but you just dismiss them out of > hand. > > J: Andre, it's all dogma. Cosmology isn't an exact science and the most fundamental parts of matter are only figments of our belief about them. And if you were a true student of Jamesian Pragmatism you would know that. > John: > I'm saying that every human is composed of 4 levels...Phaedrus's conflicts > and harmonies with Lila were not levels clashing, they were people clashing. > > Andre: > Read this again John...the way I cut up your paragraph...and yes, let the > eyes roll...! Do you NOT see how silly and contradictory this statement is? > 'People' are the patterns John. LILA is an exposition of the battles > between patterns of evolution. They're given names. 'And all these battles > between patterns of evolution go on within suffering individuals like Lila. > And Lila's battle is everybody's battle, you know?' (LILA, pp 367-8) > > Tell me John, from your perspective, do you believe that there is a > somebody, a self, a person apart from these patterns? > > Of course not. But neither do I believe in any individual patterns, apart from a whole that puts them in their place. The principle of whole-ness is also called selfness or individuality. And as far as your criticism of my ignorance of Pirsig, all I have to say is that it's always sad to see when philosophology is preferred to philosophy - even when the philosopher being philosopholigized is the the philosopher who coined philosophology. 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
