[MD] Some historical perspective

[markhsmit]

On Oct 28, 2009,  skutvik at online.no wrote:

I would of course wanted a more radical formulation "Intellect occurred 
when language's words became abstract symbols symbolizing some 
non-symbolic reality. Yours sounds as if there was an "intellect" in 
beforehand that "began the process" (there was an intelligence) You 
see how Pirsig's own definition of the 4th. level (in the Turner letter)

"The skilled manipulation of abstract symbols that have no 
corresponding particular experience and which behave 
according to rules of their own."

28 Oct. markhsmit wrote:

> I am not fluent in Pirsig's correspondence.  Could you provide an
> example of abstract symbols that cannot be reduced to particular
> experiences?

On Oct 29 skutvik at online.no wrote

No that's impossible because the term "symbol" indicates the said 
dualism, as does "subject", "mind" ...etc. why I call them aggregates, 
you can't have one without the other. 

On October 29 markhsmit responds:
What the heck are you talking about Bo, are you completely
insane?  You quote something from Pirsig and then say that
it is impossible to talk about?  What was Pirsig doing
barking?  Get your wits about you man.  I know exactly
what Pirsig is saying, but I think he is mistaken.
I was asking for examples to see if I was wrong.


On Oct 29 skutvik at online.no wrote

The only philosophers (except the Greeks) that Pirsig refers to is 
Descartes as a milestone on SOM's development, when it reached its 
"mind/matter" stage. After Descartes European - and later - American 
philosophy became ways of tackling the mind/matter enigma and their 
tactics just as many. The next one Pirsig mentions is Immanuel Kant 
and his effort to fend off the frightening consequences of an isolated 
mind (that shifted between being the creator of the universe - idealism 
- and being a side-effect of neural complexity (materialism) After Kant 
philosophy has idled along with different weird theories, Wittgenstein's 
"linguism" one example. .....until the MOQ came along and pulled the 
rug from under all this SOM-engendered stuff, but like the cartoon 
figures they don't know they have lost their fundament and keep 
walking in the air.

On October 29 markhsmit responds:

Bo, are you playing hopscotch with philosophical history?
Sure, I can draw connections between anything, and don't
get me started on the Templars and their influence on the
whole thing; I'll start to sound like Casaubon in Umberto
Eco's Foucault's Pendulum.  Pick what you want, make a
good story out of all the connections you make (you can
make as many as you want), then call it real.  From Kant
to the MOQ? Now I understand your sarcasm.  But really Bo
what do you believe?

Willblake2





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/