[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[X Acto]

> Mati:
> I will share from Pirsig letter to
> Paul Turner....
> He says, ..... " and it seems to me the
> greatest meaning can be given to the intellectual level if it is
> confined to the skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no
> corresponding particular experience and which behave according to
> rules of their own."
>
> Ron:
> I think the key lies in the Pragmatic statement:
> "the greatest meaning that may be given"
> "meaning".....to the concept of the intellectual level.
> Which he asserts, is the origin of the meanings our
> culture holds today.

Mati: But our culture today holds so many meanings both socially and
intellect(ually).  You suggest the statement is Pragmatic, practical
to what end?  Certainly not to clarifying what intellect is. 

Ron:
It most certainly does Our definition of what the term "intellectual"
means is central to his thesis, and that origin is in Greek history
distinguished by deductive reasoning, analytic, syllogism and logic,
what western cultures understanding is predicated on. It's useful
in terms of the common understanding of it's meaning, useful
in the explaination of his 4 levels of static quality, useful in making
the distinctions in its fallacies, logic traps and limitations of this common
understanding.

Mati:
 Again my
concern is that your statement is way too broad to hold any true
meaning.  If we agree that there are both social and intellect values
that are distinctively different then hows does your definition
exclude social values and for that matter anything we think of.

Ron:
It excludes it by exercising meaning and definition, easy as looking up the term
"intellectual".



> Mati:
> I will share again that with the ancient Greeks something special
> happened.  They questioned reality as never before.  Thales,
> Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, Xenophanes, Anaxagoras and others
> questioned the nature of reality.  They experimented with abstract
> ideas that tried to explain the world/reality as never before.
> Ron:
> This is quite an assumption, they are the only written records
> which our culture has found and they are rather limited
> who knows what was held in the library of alexandria that did
> not survive. Who knows what intellectual achievements the ancients
> held... certainly not you or any of us.

Mati: Again you exercising a legitimate critism about what do we
really know about what these folks really had to say and what they
really thought.  Maybe intellect as a value pattern existed before
there wasn't a language that truely could convey intellect, but I
doubt that.  What we know is based on what little we do know. Maybe
Aristotle read something that lead him to s/o that was perhaps a well
established basis of understanding of reality.  Then I think you could
make the assertion that perhaps that author was the father of
intellect.  But just like Pirsig is the father of MoQ, we crown
Aristotle as father of SOM. There are historians who make there living
to provide us with the best understanding of who these people were and
what they thought.  I have to put some trust in what they have to
offer under the research methodologies that guide them.  I don't feel
that there is a conspiracy to misled us in what they say.  Certainly I
won't be dedicating my life to learning ancient Greek texts to exact
the similar interpretation.  So when I read or hear about there work I
try to interpret meaning using Bo's SOL and I find it a very useful
tool understand what is going on.

Ron:
Useful within a context, which is just re asserting what Pirsig is already saying
save that SOL makes the same blunder as SOM...that it takes itself as THE 
truth..Aristotle never had such a theory of reality, or truth in fact he questioned the 
use of engaging in such an activity, his focus was on meaning ..not 
any notion of reality as it was understood as relative and
changing.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deductive_reasoning



> Ron:
> If you and Bodvar actually read the complete works of Plato
> and Aristotles metaphysics, you may actually gain some insight
> into the pile of generalized assumptions you are making about their work.

Mati: Perhaps in my life time I will, and perhaps I will find the
nugget of thinking that will sink the SOL ship.  But the limited
amount I do read only seems to bolsters what Bo is trying to say. 
 
Ron:
Certainly for they are using the same common understanding of the terms
plus the belief in an absolute/ultimate truth/reality that you share with them
it fits the model already in your head and as Pirsig points out one then
sees what they understand in the way they understand it and as James
notes that new ideas are grafted onto old concepts and are kept on the
basis of how well they are adapted to an existing body of beliefs.
 
Mati:
I can't just come to this conclusion time and time again and completely
reject Bo's premise.  I have been very open to the possiblity that Bo
could be wrong.  But up to this limited point I don't see it.
 
Ron:
Thats because Bo is right within a context but wrong within another
in reference to Pirsigs work. The parts he does not understand 
do not fit with his model he ridicules and throws out, dismisses it
as foolishness and countless other ad hominems. Bo has a very anayltical
logical "intellectual" mind and simply can not accept a system
with out it satisfying these conditions, he believes them to be the
fundemental constituants of reality.

> The s/o split was created over thousands of years of misinterpretaion
> and assumptions which manifested in 19th century victorian concepts.

Mati: Again the information we have is the best that we got.  Perhaps
in the future there will be a better intrepretaion of these works but
until then I think we are obligated to use what we have to the best
end.
 
Ron:
There is nothing wrong with the translation or the information but
the assumptions which are drawn from them from a limited
point of view. When we build our arguement and our personal
understanding and world view on second, third and even fourth
hand assumptions based on limited points of view on second hand
interpretations, we build them on general assumptions.

> Ron:
> I suggest we all become alittle bit more well read on the subject if fist fights
> are to be avoided.
>
> I'll bring the wine

Mati: That is what the drink is for, to relax our mood and help us be
more be more at ease. However if there is a book you recomend please
let me know.
 
Ron:
If we are going to talk metaphysics I suggest and I'm being sincere,
that we all read Aristotles metaphysics. Could'nt hurt..
Sincerely,
Ron
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/