[MD] SOLAQI, Kant's TITs, chaos, and the S/I distinction

[ian glendinning]

Then DMB, we agree. My point better said ;-) plus personal jibes for
good measure.

We agree on what the intellectual level is not. That's progress.
I think Arlo is closest to what it "is", though I'm still not sure
we've got much clarity on the social / intellectual distinction.

(I said only entertained Dan's model as acceptance that, whilst it
clearly wasn't right, it was an indication that something was also not
right with the original basic statement of the model - a holding
position, as I said in the sentence you quote.)

BTW Laird, I saw SOLAQI and the S/I distinction as precisely what was
being discussed ? Apologies if your original intent has been
railroaded.

Ian

On 1/2/07, david buchanan <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ian said:
> My own struggle with accepting a clear intellectual level is not new. This
> is one reason I was prepared to see Bo's SOLAQI as a valid intepretation.
> Still do in fact, as a holding position. ...If we simply treat "intellect"
> in Pirsig's own development of the MoQ as Good-Old-Fashioned traditional
> "scientific" rationality (logically positive, objective, etc), then we need
> space, a further evolutionary layer for better forms of rationality, like
> the MoQ itself.
>
> dmb says:
> Oh, good grief. You're so clueless and clumsy. C'mon Ian, think about it. If
> the intellectual level of the MOQ is taken to mean S/O logic or scienific
> objectivity then the MOQ's highest level is also the MOQ's central enemy.
> What sort of "logic" could be used to make sense of something that absurd? I
> mean, is it not obvious that the MOQ is a metaphysical system and a set of
> intellectual patterns that is specifically opposed to both SOM and
> scientific materialism? What reason do we have to think the intellect would
> be equivalent to one certain set of assumptions or one particular worldview?
> Even in our own debates here, we use the intellect to discuss alternatives
> to those particular pictures of realtiy. If the intellect were limited to
> scientific materialism or to SOM, then it would be impossible to write the
> MOQ or to discuss it here. I mean, the falsity of that assertion is
> demonstrated here just about every day. Sigh.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Type your favorite song. Get a customized station. Try MSN Radio powered
> by Pandora. http://radio.msn.com/?icid=T002MSN03A07001
>
>
>
> 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/
>
>