Ian said:
So, we're about where we were when Bo left us. There's something wrong with
intellect as she is currently "construed" - but we can't quite put our finger
on it. Despite that we're all trying very hard to solve the problem, because we
all sincerely "believe" intellect scores over (mere) "feeling". Carry on girls.
dmb says:
If "we" refers to John and yourself, then yes. You're still stuck where Bo left
off, which is equating SOM with intellect. This, for the tenth time at least,
is a matter of being stuck in the "problem space". It's funny that you should
mention Bo because he sent a private message telling me that John, despite his
shortcomings, is right to equate intellect with SOM. He'll likely deny it and
then contradict his own denial a few sentences later. And you'll deny it to, I
bet. Probably by simply dismissing this criticism as a personal attack. But
it's not. It's based on what you said above. It's simply not true that we can't
put our finger on it and those of us who are not stuck in the problem space are
not trying very hard to solve the problem. What we're trying very hard to do is
show you that this problem has already been solved by Pirsig and an increasing
number of other philosophers. How many times have I posted quotes from other
philosophers who also reject SOM? Too many to count; dozens or maybe even
hundreds!
What really kills me about this epic case of incorrigibility is that one can
only remain stuck on the problem by ignoring MOST of Pirsig's work. I could
fill twenty pages with quotes showing that Pirsig has already put his finger on
the problem and the point of his work is to offer a solution to this problem.
That's what the anti-intellectual gang invariably does around here. Cogent
explanations and textual evidence never seems to have any effect on the people
in this gang.
"What has become an urgent necessity is a way of looking at the world that does
violence to neither of these two kinds of understanding and unites them into
one. Such an understanding will not reject sand-sorting or contemplation of
unsorted sand for its own sake. Such an understanding will instead seek to
direct attention to the endless landscape from which the sand is taken. This is
what Phaedrus, the poor surgeon, was trying to do.To understand what he was
trying to do it's necessary to see that PART of the landscape, INSEPARABLE from
it, which MUST be understood, is a figure in the middle of it, sorting sand
into piles. To see the landscape without seeing this figure is not to see the
landscape at all. To reject that part of the Buddha that attends to the
analysis of motorcycles is to miss the Buddha entirely....About the Buddha that
exists independently of any analytic thought much has been said - some would
say TOO much, and would question any attempt to add to it. But about the Buddha
that exists WITHIN analytic thought, and GIVES THAT ANALYTIC THOUGHT ITS
DIRECTION, virtually nothing has been said, and there are historic reasons for
this. But history keeps happening, and it seems no harm and maybe some positive
good to add to our historical heritage with some talk in this area of
discourse." (ZMM, p83)
As Arlo already showed, Pirsig's self-stated goal was to show that using "this
knife creatively and effectively can result in solutions to the classic and
romantic split." (ZMM) And, "Phædrus' resolution of the entire problem of
classic and romantic understanding occurred at first in this high country of
the mind..." (ZMM)
"And so in recent times we have seen a huge split develop between a classic
culture and a romantic counterculture...two worlds growingly alienated and
hateful toward each other with everyone wondering if it will always be this
way, a house divided against itself." (ZMM)
"The answer is Phædrus' contention that classic understanding should not be
overlaid with romantic prettiness; classic and romantic understanding should be
united at a basic level." (ZMM)
"I think that the referent of a term that can split a world into hip and
square, classic and romantic, technological and humanistic, is an entity that
can unite a world already split along these lines into one." (ZMM)
"Actually a root word of technology, techne, originally meant "art." The
ancient Greeks never separated art from manufacture in their minds, and so
never developed separate words for them." (ZMM)
"So I guess what I'm trying to say is that the solution to the problem isn't
that you abandon rationality but that you expand the nature of rationality so
that it's capable of coming up with a solution." (ZMM)
"The answer is Phædrus' contention that classic understanding should not be
overlaid with romantic prettiness; classic and romantic understanding should be
united at a basic level." (ZMM)
"In each case there's a beautiful way of doing it and an ugly way of doing it,
and in arriving at the high-quality, beautiful way of doing it, both an ability
to see what "looks good" and an ability to understand the underlying methods to
arrive at that "good" are needed. Both classic and romantic understandings of
Quality must be combined." (ZMM)
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
