[MD] irony and socrates

[skutvik at online.no]

For Ian

14 Oct.:

> 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.

And I answered them  one by one, without a trace of insults. They 
were: 

#1:  Are all social PoV's in need of debunking 

#2: Are all intellectual PoV's free of social prejudices
 
# 3  How can we tell a good / intellectual PoV from an inferior /
        social PoV ? 

# 4 (How do we do any of that if intellect = SOM ?)

But if my "crime" is that all questions requires the SOL interpretation to 
be properly answered, what can I do? 

> 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. 

What you "know" is that a subject/object metaphysics has invaded an 
otherwise neutral innocent container called "intellect" and that SOM 
can be removed and replaced by the MOQ. That's the way you 
understand it ...no?  But Pirsig says "It is the intellectual framework ... 
that is at fault"

> 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? 

"A better MOQish intellect" means the said  "container--intellect" filled 
by the MOQ  ... no?   The 4th. level is a sub-set of the MOQ, bu no 
twist and bend of logic can this contain the MOQ. Study the "container" 
passage in LILA! 

> You don't even have to call it intellect if you want to reserve that
> term for the GOF mental / SOMist kind. 

??????????????

Bo











> (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/
> 
>