[MD] Dawkins a Materialist (is watching?)

[ARLO J BENSINGER JR]

[SA]
This intellectual statement I think highlights how Pirsig pointed to the
intellectual level better than just saying S and O divide are upon the
intellectual level.  The divide of S and O doesn't point at the intellect.  It
says what the intellect does with subjects and objects which can be trees, the
heart, etc...  Thus, S and O are anything.  Yet, this one statement points
directly at the intellect, and says what the intellect does more descriptively.
 I take this statement further to mean trees, heart, etc... for these are just
analogies of ultimate reality, too.

[Arlo]
Amen. And let's remember too what Pirsig said about modern S/O culture.

"And now he began to see for the first time the unbelievable magnitude of what
man, when he gained power to understand and rule the world in terms of
dialectic truths, had lost. He had built empires of scientific capability to
manipulate the phenomena of nature into enormous manifestations of his own
dreams of power and wealth...but for this he had exchanged an empire of
understanding of equal magnitude: an understanding of what it is to be a part
of the world, and not an enemy of it." (ZMM)

Destroying the S/O dominance brings one back into rhythm with the world, it
destroys separateness. "What produces this involvement is, at the cutting edge
of consciousness, an absence of any sense of separateness of subject and
object. "Being with it," "being a natural," "taking hold"...there are a lot of
idiomatic expressions for what I mean by this absence of subject-object
duality..." (ZMM)

[SA]
Instead of just saying S and O divided is all the intellect does, which doesn't
reach out into the other levels, for the other levels don't divide S and O, do
they?  But this statement ["All this is just an analogy"] above is more
descriptive, more inclusive, and goes straight to the point as to what static
quality is, which is just analogy of dq.

agree, disagree?

[Arlo]
Wholeheartedly agree.