[MD] The SOL-ution

[david buchanan]

Hey Bo:

Glad to know you're still out there reading, if not posting. Hope you're 
doing well.

Bo said:
DMB had a lot of objections, but none are valid. He reverts to intellect as 
"thinking" or mind, something even Pirsig rejected in the Turner letter. 
Again, intellect isn't scientific objectivity, subjectivity is part and 
parcel of its make-up. None real in themselves, only the S/O divide or 
aggregate counts.

dmb says:
I'd like to respond but I really don't know what you mean by reverting and I 
don't think anyone suggested that SOM does not include the S.

previously, dmb had said:
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.

Bo replied:
Intellect is the VALUE of splitting existence into materialism and idealism, 
matter and mind, and the many S/O derivatives.

dmb says:
Huh? Is that supposed to be a response to my assertion? It seems to me that 
there is an inescapable logic here that you have not addressed in the 
slightest. If the MOQ is an intellectual construct like all philosophical 
systems and it specifically rejects the assumptions of SOM, then the MOQ is 
an example of non-SOM intellect. There are other examples mentioned by 
Pirsig, the philosophies of the East and even mathematics in the West, but 
I'm struck by the irony. See what I mean? The existence of the MOQ sort of 
proves that intellect is not limited to SOM. It seems to me that the only 
way to escape this logic is to invent a whole new level of reality. That is 
a cure worse than the disease.

Bo said:
Like Pirsig, DMB wields the SOL when writing/thinking naturally, but when 
asked to define intellect it becomes something nobody knows what is.

dmb says:
Thanks for comparing me to Bob. And just for the record, I think I know what 
intellect is. I mean, I don't seem to have any trouble with the concept. It 
seems like something I use all the time and to be perfectly frank I fail to 
see why it has been the source of so much confusion for so many. The whole 
SOLAQI thing for example, I never understood what the problem was in the 
first place. It seems to be that the intellectual knife can slice things up 
in any number of ways and there is no reason to believe that it must slice 
up reality into subjects and objects. Why not static and dynamic quality, 
for example? Again, the MOQ is exhibit A in the case that says there is more 
than one way to slice it. And anyone who hangs around in a place like this 
should have at least some idea of what that piece of evidence looks like, 
how it replaced one central division for another and why.

It may seem that I've avoided your comments here, Bo, but I simply can't 
comprehend you.

_________________________________________________________________
Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place!  MSN Shopping 
Sales & Deals 
http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639