[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[X Acto]

David, Khoo, Mary, Multitude

Jan 25.

Mary (I believe): 
> > The contention that the intellectual level arose, alone with the Greeks,
> > from an Oriental/Eastern position is absolutely laughable, if one if
> > familiar with the complex philosophies that developed in India and
> > China. Any one making that assertion would not be taken seriously in
> > this side of the world. In my readings of ZAMM and LILA, I did not get
> > the impression that Pirsig took such a position. Alarm bells in my head
> > would have gone on otherwise.

Bo:
My contention in the post for Khoo was that Pirsig compares the 
"oriental" Veda era with MOQ's social level and their Upanishads 
period with MOQ's intellectual level (from the P.T. letter).        

    The argument that Oriental cultures would not be classified as 
    intellectual is avoided by pointing out that the Oriental cultures 
    developed an intellectual level independently of the Greeks 
    during the Upanishadic period of India at about 1000 to 600 
    B.C. (These dates may be off.)  

No one has forwarded any argument about a non-intellectual Orient, 


Ron:
BULLSHIT!!!!!

Bo:

but Pirsig's errand is to avoid the Oriental level being S/O.

Ron:
BuLLSHIT!!!


Bo:
 Above he 
says that the "...Oriental cultures developed an intellectual level 
independently of the Greeks during the Uphanishadic period ....etc." 
Correct, but the said period was one of hefty philosophizing and 
philosophy is by definition a search for explanations beyond the 
mythological god-explanations. This is what Western philosophy was 
and what Oriental philosophy was. (religious philosophy is a hoax) 
However in the West things stopped here and cemented into what we 
know as SOM, while the Orientals transcended their intellectual level  
and entered the Q-like wisdom we know as Buddhism  But they have 
"intellect" as part of their constitution and can be "technological" 
when/if needed. 

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.
Bo:
I'm not sure what your point is here.

Ron:
Duh
Dave:
> 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 .    

Ron:
Yes science's prerequisite.. ..heh...yup...
enjoy those meds...



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/