[MD] What is Zen?

[skutvik at online.no]

Dave M. B.

29 June you wrote:

> Marsha and Platt and Bo all asked: Name ONE intellectual pattern that
> is not SOM. 

dmb says:

> On top of the several named by Pirsig, 

Those named in "Lila's Child" were either not Q-intellectual or S/O 
through and through.

> I have posted quotes from a number of philosophers wherein they
> specifically reject SOM. Hegel, Heidegger, Dewey, James, Pirsig of
> course, Hildebrand, Stuhr, Rosenthal, Brown, Taylor, Hickman. But I
> guess they don't count because they're "intellectuals" and by your 
> definition anything intellectual is SOM. They're screwing everything
> up, right? 

No, dear Dave, our argument is NOT that everything that intellectuals  
think is SOM,  but your argument is obviously  that every thought, idea 
..etc is intellect and this screws the MOQ up. Those rejections of SOM 
that you mention were failed attempts to escape SOM. Failed because 
it requires a metaphysics hat has SOM as a sub-system and Phaedrus 
breakthrough in ZAMM was that of seeing SOM as a fall-out of Quality 
..... and the S/O distinction called "intellect" FYI. 

> Do you not see how this makes it impossible to reason with you? It
> doesn't matter what anyone says because you understand this better
> than all the philosophers in the world, right?

If what you say had been correct, but it's a strawman.  

> Where do you get the gall and what was thing about humility?

At least I got my gall from understanding in a flash (upon reading 
ZAMM for the first time) how SOM was down and out, but then to my 
horror seeing LILA let it rise and shine by skipping Phaedrus' 
S/O=intellect insight. I regret my non-humility, but .....       

> Seriously. Why not read a book or something? People besides Pirsig do
> talk about this issue, you know? James and Dewey were completely
> unaware of the MOQ and yet they said the same thing about SOM. Pirsig
> tells us this about James. 

Yes, and the James connection which makes the DQ/SQ a Pre-
language/Language thing was part of LILA'S letting SOM free. About 
Dewey I don't know, but it's no lack of thinkers "attacking" the 
mind/matter dualism, but always resulting in either everything being 
matter or everything being mind and you "Pirsig defenders" tend to 
lean towards idealism in new guises. While us "MOQ defenders" claim 
that only by making all this paradox-creating subject/object stuff into 
MOQ's intellectual level it is finally and safely disposed of.              

> What reason do you have to disbelieve him about that? You have no
> REASON to dislike the other radical empiricists. 

Tell me about the MOQ-like metaphysics that emanates from Hegel, 
Heidegger, Dewey, James, Hildebrand, Stuhr, Rosenthal, Brown, 
Taylor, Hickman.


Yours sincerely

Bodvar