[MD] Congratulations America!

[david buchanan]

Bodvar said:...I believe that the "SOM as intellect" tenet is now generally accepted (among the thinkers) and that means that the MOQ is no intellectual pattern and thus saved. DMB will probably repeat "Bo is wrong" till he drops, but that can't be helped.dmb says:Consider it repeated. There are many thinkers that make a case against SOM and of course they use intellect to make that case. I think this should be obvious because the MOQ is our prime example of such a non-SOM intellectual description. Maybe your confusion is caused by a failure to distinguish between the capacity to think with the product of that capacity. It's like the difference between the skill of a carpenter and one of his products, between the ability to cook and the meal that's been prepared. The ability to manipulate abstractions is different than any particular configuration of of abstractions. That's how we can think of metaphysical systems as paintings in a gallery. The same basic skill set can produce any number of pictures. The notion that there can only be one true picture of reality is one of the central problems with SOM. Unlike the MOQ, scientific objectivity allows only one construction of things. This is also a feature of all forms of essentialism. I mean, your insistence that intellect equals SOM is probably, and ironically, a stubborn vestige of the SOM picture of reality.Personally, I don't like the consequences of that equation either. It denigrates the intellect and more or less denies it the capacity to change or evolve or to paint new pictures. Pirsig is saying that intellect is the most dynamic level and that's what makes it the most moral level but your equation turns the intellectual level into the MOQ's own worst enemy. Time to go to work.
_________________________________________________________________
Color coding for safety: Windows Live Hotmail alerts you to suspicious email.
http://windowslive.com/Explore/Hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_hotmail_acq_safety_112008