[MD] Food for Thought

[david buchanan]

Arlo said to dmb:
The problem I was having had to do with an association of "logic" (or 
reason, or science) as THE defining characteristic of the intellectual 
level, and also with it as inherently S/O. That is, the very characteristics 
that Pirsig criticizes as S/O, are the very characteristics that distinguish 
intellect from social level patterns. Clearly, however, Pirsig believes that 
there CAN be a science, there can be reason, there can be logic that is NOT 
S/O dominant. But I have trouble envisioning what "reason" would be without 
the decultural-decontextual "objectivist" characteristics of S/O thought. 
..In other words, "logic" is not S/O, OUR "logic" is. But what would a 
non-S/O "logic" look like? What would non-S/O reason look like?

dmb says:
It looks like the MOQ and the philosophies of the East. Pirsig uses reason 
and logic to attack SOM. I mean, its seems obvious to me that SOM represents 
a flaw in the intellect and that the repair job can only be done by 
intellect. Logic and reason are not undone by rejecting the metaphysical 
assumptions. And I'd also point out that those assumptions are not even 
restricted to the intellectual level. As Pirsig points out, these 
assumptions are built into the structure of Western languages and so it is 
an ancient perspective that was later inherited and rationalized by 
intellect. This is what I meant when I pointed out that the MOQ could not 
have been constructed nor subsequently discussed if there was no such thing 
as non-SOM intelllect. These assumptions have in fact been under attack by 
intellectuals, using logic and reason, for more than a hundred years so I 
don't quite understand why this is such a sticking point. Until I come up 
with a better answer, I'm gonna blame Bodvar for this mess.

Arlo said:
I think its worth mentioning that Pirsig writes heavily about two cultures 
whose mythos are NOT S/O oriented, the Native Americans in LILA and the 
Asian-Buddhist culture in ZMM. The philosophies of these cultures, their 
logos, their "reason", I think is an answer.

dmb says:
Right. That's what I was just saying. Even if these exceptions have to come 
from other cultures or have to be newly minted by philosophers, they still 
serve to demonstrate that SOM is not the only kind of intellect possible. 
This not only fails to be an essential feature, it is a feature worthy of 
rejection. As I see it, the MOQ is a intellectual description specifically 
designed to exclude SOM. As such, it demostrates the existence and 
possibility of such a thing.

_________________________________________________________________
Get FREE Web site and company branded e-mail from Microsoft Office Live 
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/