[MD] irony and socrates

[Ian Glendinning]

You bet Marsha.
Its why I'm still bemused that Bo sees SOMist Intellect as the pinnacle of MoQ.

(As an aside - since reading Lindley, I'm re-reading Heisenberg's
"Physical Principles of QM".
Although he is characterized in the Copenhagen histories as
unconcerned with metaphysical questions, "unconcerned" does not really
do his position justice. In fact he is actually very explicit that in
describing QM, no-one should think he is saying anything at all about
reality - that's something completely different.)

Regards
Ian

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 12:36 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
> 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/
>
> 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/
>