[MD] The Intellectual Gauntlet III - Lila meets Reet

[Ian Glendinning]

Hi Folks, (Dan, Doug & Marsha mentioned).

PS - mentioning that non-SOMist langauge earlier, I mentioned "Dan" -
Ooops - I meant "Doug" (Quantonics) Renselle of course - still
ploughing his own furrow with his M0Qish "private language".

PPS - if people don't like my Catch-22 characterization - perhaps
people should listen to Marsha more .... she can see the hole we
"western males" dig with our SOMist discourse.

Ian

On 7/21/08, Ian Glendinning <ian.glendinning at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mati,
>
> I think DMB is right that most of the subject matter in that Reet
> example is Social (maybe Joe is right that some are intellectual
> values, but again as DMB says, the Q&A could have been better
> constructed to make that clearer), but the real point is, I believe,
> in your own closing remark Mati.
>
> Careful with that Aristotelian knife - I've been calling it Catch-22
> for some time - you say "I sincerely and respectfully don't think this
> is the way Pirsig  intended for MOQ to be used, remember in MOQ the
> scalpel first cut, SQ/DQ."
>
> Spot on.
>
> By "analysing" a piece of data like that - dead subject matter,
> reported in text - we have a strong tendency to start with the SOMist
> first intellectual cut. Our "analysis" is SOMist (historically
> intellectual), whatever the subject matter ... in fact (sympathetic to
> Krim's point) simply focussing on the division of MoQ into the layers
> as subject matter areas is a SOMist perspective.
>
> I have no simple answer, but I think the source of the confusion is
> real. Unless we invent a non-SOMist language for our discourse (which
> I also mentioned earlier). Pirsig himself used rhetorical narrative,
> rather than "scholarly discourse".
>
> Ian