[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[X Acto]

[Ron]
That is why it is so important to clearly make the distinction between 
intellect=SOM theory with Pirsigs expansion of reason. The consequences, are 
vastly
different.

[Arlo]
I think this is exactly right, and this is the reason I've been asking, to no 
avail, of all the SOL-ists to articulate why they find the Intellect=SOM view 
better than Pirsig's Intellect!=SOM view. What consequences of this do they see 
as BETTER?

Ron:
I think that the value of this theory allows those who subscribe to it the
justification of feeling superior to culturally defined definitions of what it 
means to be intelligent, it elevates the layman over scientific discipline.
It refutes any kind of authority and rejects any appeal to the consensus
of the good. The consequence is that it only serves to further isolate the
individual, something they seem to value in the "rugged individualist" way,
by not having to conform to anyones expectations other than their own.
But according to RMP's explanation, this is the whole cause of the problem,
intellect has joined forces with biology to undermine the social level.




[Ron]
Which brings about something I've been contemplating regarding what Nietzsche 
said about philosophy being unable to cure an ailing culture.

[Arlo]
Arnold Toynbee makes the same point, as quoted in Campbell's Hero with a 
Thousand Faces. "schism in the soul, schism in the body social, will not be 
resolved by any scheme of return to the good old days (archaism), or by programs 
guaranteed to render an ideal projected future (futurism), or even by the most 
realistic, hardheaded work to weld together again the deteriorating elements. 
Only birth can conquer death—the birth, not of the old thing again, but of 
something new... Peace then is a snare; war is a snare; change is a snare; 
permanence a snare. When our day is come for the victory of death, death closes 
in; there is nothing we can do, except be crucified—and resurrected; dismembered 
totally, and then reborn."

Ron:
Sounds then, that it is a question of developing certain values and our reasons
for holding them, which brings up the Socratic dialogs about the meaning
of wisdom.
It then begs the question on the wisdom of philosophy,
Does being a lover of wisdom, make one wise?


Arlo:

I've thought for a while that DQ is too rhetorically confined to the creative 
aspect and is better understood as the Hindu Trimurti, which encapsules 
"creation, maintenance, and destruction". That is, DQ "destroys" as much as it 
"creates", or better said "creation always comes with destruction". Every act of 
creation occurs in the midst of destruction and transformation.

Ron:
I was trying to make this point to Dan about what we mean
when we use the term.
When we link ideas together how their continuity has a greater
meaning, a generalized root meaning and in this capacity the dynamic
has the greatest meaning. In that root meaning DQ or Quality in it's
totality to me, is best described as betterness, destruction is embedded
in this betterness it is part of the good. It is part of being.
Aristotle linked being and the good as being qua being a sort of act of
becoming. I suspect that many dualistic monisms point in a similar
direction.
But as you can see, there become two contextualized meanings for the term.




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/md/archives.html