[MD] Kant's Motorcycle

[LARAMIE LOEWEN]

Hi Dave,

>The only thing I might disagree about is the idea that SOM is needed to 
>prevent degeneration. In fact, I think Pirsig makes a pretty good case that 
>SOM is the source of the problem. Well, more specifically the problem is 
>positivistic materalism, scientific materialism. But this has been quite 
>dominant and is more like the epitome of SOM rather than just a species of 
>it.

What is the difference between knowing and SOM?  Is there any?

Thanks,  
Laramie

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: david buchanan<mailto:dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> 
  To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org<mailto:moq_discuss at moqtalk.org> 
  Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 10:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [MD] Kant's Motorcycle


  LARAMIE quoted Ken Wilber, Up From Eden; Pg. 344 and then said:
  I'm sure this is not your intention, Dave, but we need to be careful not to 
  support evolutionary regression.  The "assumptions of SOM" are necessary if 
  we are to evolve from prerational to transrational.

  dmb says:
  I'm a big fan of Wilber and I think he's in agreement with Pirsig on this. 
  In Lila he talks about how the hippies confused dynamic quality and 
  biological quality in the popular versions of Zen. He talks about how the 
  intellectuals took sides with biology against social level values. Marx and 
  Freud and Darwin were all part of the storm. Basically, in ordinary 
  language, these guys are saying that beauty and sensuality and pleasure are 
  not to be confused with spiritual bliss or hedonism with freedom. I think 
  that's what Pirsig's code of Art is all about. In terms of personal 
  development the pure experience or Dynamic Quality that I'm talking about 
  here is known by infants and by Zen Masters, but babies aren't enlightened 
  because one has to have a mind before it can be blown, if you will. I mean, 
  that is the starkest example I can imagine. Going back to infancy would be 
  as regressive as it gets.


  But I have to point out that this isn't really relevant to radical 
  empiricism. I mean, you're right but on a different topic entirely. Here we 
  are talking about a theory of knowledge, an epistemological position. Its 
  about the relationship between the empiricism of pragmatism and almost every 
  other school of thought including the dominant one. This is how Pirsig goes 
  after the amoral rationality underlying these problems, but the problems are 
  better addressed after the structure of the MOQ, with its levels and moral 
  codes. All that is a few miles down the road, topic wise.

  Thanks.
  dmb

  _________________________________________________________________
  Fixing up the home? Live Search can help 
  http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG<http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG>

  moq_discuss mailing list
  Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
  http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org<http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org>
  Archives:
  http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/<http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/>
  http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/<http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/>