[MD] irony and socrates

[MarshaV]

Hi Ian,

Maybe this is where Buddhism can be useful.  If self and objects are not
seen as inherently existing, maybe there would not be such a rush to grasp
the illusory, and therefore less anxiety, less suffering and more quality
decisions.  


Marsha




-----Original Message-----
From: moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org
[mailto:moq_discuss-bounces at lists.moqtalk.org] On Behalf Of Ian Glendinning
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 6:16 AM
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Subject: Re: [MD] irony and socrates

Hi Bo, leave off the insults I asked several simple open questions,
which you ignored.
You see your intelocutors as ensnared in GOF-Intellect's tentacles. I
just see you in that bind.

The Pirsig quotes are recognized and clear ... even the one you double
quote / highlight thus :
"It is the intellectual framework with which one deals with the data
that is at fault. The fault is within subject-object metaphysics
itself."

We know this. It's the starting point for a discussion. It tell us the
problem clearly enough, but it doesn't tell us any solution.
ie That GOF SOMist kind of intellect framework is at fault; what does
a better / MOQish "intellect" look like ?
You don't even have to call it intellect if you want to reserve that
term for the GOF mental / SOMist kind.

(Clearly it is more than the mental - how often do we have to agree that ?)
Regards
Ian

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> For Ron
>
> 12 Oct.
>
> Ian to Bo:
>> > Some hope : You suggested. "Every single intellectual pattern is about
>> > debunking the social [PoV's]." Nice idea. A hierarchical relationship
of
>> > Intellect over Social - which is where we started. But, so many
>> > questions. Are all social PoV's in need of debunking ? Are all
>> > intellectual PoV's free of social prejudices ? How can we tell a good /
>> > intellectual PoV from an inferior / social PoV ? (How do we do any of
>> > that if intellect = SOM ?)
>
> Ron:
>> Great questions Ian, How IS any of that done if intellect equals SOM.
>> SOM equalling intellect is already the universaly agreed apon
>> assumption.
>
> Yes I know that you all regard SOM as ONE intellectual pattern, but
> the point is that for the MOQ to make sense its intellectual level has to
> be SOM. Regrettably I don't take notes of all indications of this
> interpretation in Pirsig's writings, but the latest was
>
>    Pirsig in LILA: "There is the materialist school that says reality
>    is all matter, which creates mind. There is the idealist school
>    that says it is all mind, which creates matter [....]  It is the
>    intellectual framework with which one deals with the data that
>    is at fault. The fault is within subject-object metaphysics itself.
>
> "It is the intellectual framework with which one deals with the data that
> is at fault. The fault is within subject-object metaphysics itself.
>
> I can of course not force you don't see the obvious, intellect's tentacles
> are tough and the toughest one is the term "intellect" that indicates
> mental and - consequently - intellectual patterns as ideas or thoughts -
> of which the MOQ is one - but as said: The subject/object distinction
> (in all its forms) is abolished, "intellectual patterns" aren't mental
> patterns but the value of the MENTAL/CORPOREAL distinction.
>
> But now I understand that you neither care about Pirsig's writings nor
> my interpretations of these writings. So good-bye to you.
>
> Bodvar
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
>
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/