[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[David Thomas]

Bo

> Dave
>> I did a quick search of Lila and I could not find a direct quote that says
>> that. I seem to recall that he was asked and replied something to the
>> affect, 'I don't see how the intellectual level could have emerged much
>> before Ancient Greece' and later wobbled with a comment about one of the
>> ancient Eastern religious text. My point is that whether this claim is
>> real or a myth it is just plain wrong.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is here.

With you rounding up both Pirsig's responses on the issue, the point is that
he clarified himself to say the intellectual level did not just evolve in
one place, at one time, and only with S/O base.  Which is all I was trying
to get you to agree to.

>[Bo before]
> No one has forwarded any argument about a non-intellectual Orient.

I just did. In an attempt to show you the consequences holding a position
that the emergence of the intellectual level is limited to SOM and that it
is a separate stage of evolution like, physical, biological, or social.
Which is the SOL premise. So the "no one" who I am point to is you as the
consequences of your premise.

You have already claimed that Native Americans had no "intellect". Which
includes Aztecs, Mayan, Inca cultures to name a few. (RMP & me disagree)
But the bigger point is that the label "Oriental",which Pirsig uses too, is
a Eurocentric term for every culture East of it. Essentially everybody else.
Any current statement about basic reality that excludes "intellect" from the
majority of the human race is not only misguided, it is sure to be
interpreted as racist, and it is scientifically, and in every other way,
just plain wrong. 

Does this mean that your position has never been held? Absolutely not during
the period that the term "Oriental" was created this was the dominate
paradigm of both science and the public. It was operating system of colonial
expansion. All others were subhuman. My guess is you are not interested in
going back to that paradigm.

>> And he explicitly states in Lila on pg 140: "Within this evolutionary
>> relationship it is possible to see that intellect has functions that
>> predate science and philosophy." Bo has to either overlook or deny this
>> claim to support his SOL premise.
> 
> Bo hereby denies this claim. It's Pirsig's notorious intelligence-intellect
> confusion. Intellect (objective-over-subjective) "predating philosophy"
> is self-contradictory because it IS philosophy! "Predating science",
> sure, it's science's prerequisite .

And here we circle right back around to YOUR misunderstanding. I emphasize
your because as I come back from a long hiatus, contrary to your repeated
claims, I see little or no support for your position.

I had another attempt to move you started below when your last post arrived.
I deleted because it is quite clear you will never modify or abandon your
position. And it is futile for anyone to try.

I listened to several of the audio essays that Marsha recommended in one of
them something to the effect of "one of the social goals of science was to
find a way to settle disputes without going to war." was said.

Coming from a man who says (Religion is a hoax) it is extremely difficult to
understand that you cannot see the consequences of your position and we
should accepted it based on "Can't it be that I intuitively perceived" or
"Faith" the same rational as Christianity, Islam, and suicide bombers.

But so be it. 

Dave