[MD] Intellect's Symposium

[skutvik at online.no]

John and Multitude.

31 Jan. you wrote: 
> I'm gonna leap in here and oppose your statements that I find utterly
> ridiculous.  Sometimes you say things that I don't understand, other
> times I do understand and disagree utterly.
> Utter disagreement deserves utterance as part of the interpretative
> process.

Bo before to Dave :
> > You make so many strange assertion Dave that it's hard to take you
> > seriously. 

John:
> Disagree.  Dave T has made more sense than I've seen in a while on
> this forum.

That's reasonable, if you find my utterances bad Dave's will be good. 

Bo before::
>  So you see what is illusory and what is true has varied, but SOM's
> "essence" is the S/O DISTINCTION. Write that down on your little
> kindergarten blackboard. 

John:
> The "essence" of SOM is solipsism - regarding "self" as the supreme
> value. 

Now, I hardly can take YOU seriously. 

Bo:
>  not until Pirsig has Western philosophy moved forward after Kant. 

John:
>  Pirsig isn't acceptable to Western Philosophy so I can't see that  IT
> has moved forward.  

Here I agree partly with you. Western philosphy couldn't  find a way 
out of Kant's "cul de sac" so for hundred and some years it just 
ruminated his conclusion. Pirsig's MOQ is as you say not acceptable 
to academical philosophy yet it is "Western". I have suggested a 
"Western Buddhism". 

> And I just posted an excerpt explaining why.  Also, he's not completely
> alone in his refutation of SOM, as you keep asserting and I keep
> refuting. 

Well, there have been many attempts at the mind/matter dichotomy 
(not SOM mind you, no one inside SOM - intellect - knows any SOM 
or intellect) Only with Pirsig's discovery that there were a SOM 
emerging at a particular historical time the spell was broken. Usually 
all attempts has been along the lines: "All is mind" or "all is matter" 
which are equally futile. Tell me who has refuted SOM.  

DT prev:
> > > Our experience indicates that over time "concepts of thought" develop
> > > in the mind to help order experience. Some may be inventions of the
> > > mind, but most often these are not conscience decisions but adoptions
> > > based on similar experience and knowledge shared within social groups.

Bo:
> > THis is so arch-somish that I have no comment, With friends like you
> > the MOQ hardly need enemies.

John:
> "adoptions based on similar experience and knowledge shared within
> social groups" sounds exactly right to me.  What else is there? The MoQ
> doesn't have enough friends.  It has no enemies at all. Nobody attacks
> a new metaphysics - or if they do it has the opposite effect than that
> intended.  They just ignore it completely. Ignore-ance is the enemy.
> Attack is the friendliest "taking it seriously" I can imagine.

The social level was - still is - all about controlling/quelling biological 
value, nothing about mindish ideas or knowledge shared or  
anything of this intellect looking down upon creation through its 
subjective, mind, consciousness ... etc. glasses. This is about the 
MOQ looking down at the static levels! When will this dawn on you? 
The SOL is unassailable and when it can't be refuted people turn 
mean. For instance Ron and Andre with their once creepy "agreement 
with Bo" and then with equal creepy psychological attacks, Bo just 
defending some cerebrity position ...etc. 

Well, it can be helped, when you can't win the ball, attack the player.

Bodvar