[MD] Some historical perspective

[skutvik at online.no]

For Ian.

26 Oct.:

Bo before
> However, what SOM means by "intellect" is totally different by what
> the MOQ means.

Ian now 
> Hopefully, otherwise we're all wasting our time.

Can't you understand that there are just two options. Either MOQ's 
intellectual level is 

1) = SOM 

or

2) = what SOM means by "intellect", namely the mental compartment 
called "mind" where concepts - ideas - thoughts .. are formulated and 
stored.

NB!
FYI "Manipulation of symbols ....etc."  is a variety of #2.
 
> Good to see some debunking of the convenient, but simplistic,
> apocryphal, myth that the Greeks invented SOMism. 

The "Greeks" times have been deemed a fundamental upheaval by  
historians, philosophers, writers, thinkers ...etc. but no one had 
interpreted it like Pirsig's SOM so it has not reached any mythological 
status. This is the world-shaking revelation of ZAMM and if you see 
Matt's blog as "debunking" it you are even dumber than he is. You can 
mean whatever you want about my SOL .... even step on my blue 
suede shoes ... but ZAMM's on SOM is inviolable. 

> Clearly the "take-up" of Plato and Aristotle led to SOMism being
> formalised and embedded in our received wisdom, but reality is more
> complicated than that. Such details matters to the narrative if not to
> "what MOQism is". Convenient myths have their uses. 

More Glendinnian fog-banks.  
 
Bodvar




















> Regards
> Ian
> 
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 3:47 PM,  <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
> > Hi Matt
> >
> > 24 Oct.
> >
> > Dr. Squonk I presume:
> 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/
> 
>