Hi Folks
DMB is making a very valid point here.
The two people (John C and Ian) who were (and appear to still be)
attached to Bo's SOM = Intellect are also the two that are having the
hardest time getting their heads around the problem space/solution
scenario that several people here have commented on, supplied evidence
for and generally given a crystal clear explanation about!
I'm having a really hard time understanding why you can't (or won't)
make the transition.
There is no problem here and as DMB has re-iterated over and over, stop
confusing the problem with the cure!
I'm sure both of you will say that you have disagreements with Bo and
his flawed interpretation but the bottom line is you're still stuck in
that particular mode. This is similar to when myself, Arlo, Dan, etc.
say that we have minor disagreements with some small areas of the MoQ
but overall we are all in agreement with the vast majority of it. You
two appear to be doing the same thing a la Bo - your disagreements do
not overcome your general adherence to his mistaken and inaccurate
interpretation. Until you get past this you ARE going to be stuck in the
same place as when Bo left. No amount of evidence is going to shift you
because you will just keep ignoring and/or denying it.
There are none so blind.....etc.
Horse
On 06/06/2014 17:28, david wrote:
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
--
"Without music to decorate it, time is just a bunch of boring production deadlines
or dates by which bills must be paid."
— Frank Zappa
---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection
is active.
http://www.avast.com
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
