Hi DMB, and in that first para, you in fact agree with what I
suggested. The intended follow-up was to debate the standards of
intelligent intellectual philosophical debate in our MoQ context, you
start to do so by listing contributions you consider valid. Progress.
So clearly not a strawman.
You
OK Arlo,
On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 4:52 PM, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR ajb...@psu.edu wrote:
[Ian]
I've tried and get roundly shouted down by the baying mob of Pirsig bulldogs.
[Arlo]
For someone who cries straw man with almost every post, you sure seem to
rely on them a lot.
so instead of
Hi Ant,
On Sat, Aug 3, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Ant McWatt antmcw...@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
Many thanks for that Ian but DMB is essentially making a very good point
about the intellectual quality (or lack of) at this Discussion group.
[IG] Me too, or do you disagree ?
Otherwise, the title of this
[Ron]
It made me reflect on what we mean by static and dynamic and how they best
function as a description in relation to cultural patterns, the west may be a
more dynamic culture as it accepts change faster but the east cultures the
personal experience with dynamic quality and it does this
[Ian]
... not allowing a narrow SOMist (Context 2) view of intellect to dominate.
[Arlo]
I read this, and I think I cried a little.
Let's start with Paul's basic definition of context two.
Context (2) is the articulation of a particular intellectual static pattern -
the 'plain of
[djh]
The Dynamic/East context is the same as context 1. The static/West
context is the same as context 2.
[Arlo]
I suggest you take some time and read Northrop's Meeting of East and West.
There is really nothing more I can say to this, David. This context
dichotomy has no value to me,
[DJH]
At the most fundamental level there is an apparent contradiction within the
MOQ...
[Arlo]
I do not see this a 'contradiction' (apparent or otherwise) within the MOQ. How
I read Paul's ideas, is that Pirsig uses two voices over two books, one
epistemological and one ontological. I've
Ian said to dmb:
...You don't need the anti-intellectual slogans response. As I have said when
you see those, you are seeing a reaction to the narrow Context 2 view of
intellect attempting to dominate Context 1 - a defensive reaction against the
dominant ideology, as I also said. As Paul
dmb,
I'm not buying your rhetoric. I am at the MD to explore RMP's Metaphysics of
Quality and the MoQ's relationship to Buddhism, and the way they play in living
my life. I am not here to accept your interpretations, opinions and judgements
as Holy Writ. I'll leave you to be as you are,
Hi, Arlo.
breathtaking to read in your last two postings,that you understood the
Turhererpaper completely,just as you understood Pirsigs, works
completely.Furthermore you seem to handle all possible implications
flawlessly with a 'natural' as if the rest is unimportant.
what you are presenting
10 matches
Mail list logo
