[MD] Stuck on a Torn Slot

[X Acto]

John:
I pretty much agree with you, Arlo, dmb and all who oppose the SOL assertion
that SOM=4th level.  As you know, I just wish we had a better term for it
than "intellect".  If it's an expansion of reason, and I agree that it is,
then it oughta be designated as such but really, I can't think of anything
else that wouldn't be just as confusing so I'm gonna give that complaint a
rest.

Ron:
Thats reasonable John because the term commonly applies to a particular
definition that has taken on a "common sense" type of meaning in western
culture. 
Both of Pirsigs books are an appeal to re-examine what is meant by the term
and expand that definition. MoQ is his explanation and reasons for doing so.

The arguement seems to concern itself with the idea that it would be better to
rename the term rather than to expand the terms meaning to make the distinction.

I think a rather good case has been made as to why that would be unwise.


John:
However, I'd like to address a couple other points you make.

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

It depends, I think, on the exact mechanisms you've got available for the
interactions of philosophy and culture.  In a literate culture that reads
extensively, then I think you've got more possibilities.  But I can see that
by definition of "ailing" you're not gonna have that.  In fact, I'd say
"ailing" means a culture that doesn't heed philosophy or wisdom.  So yeah,
that sounds right.  And how are you going to change that dynamic?  I don't
think you can.

Ron:
THE question.....I think YOU can. It must begin from within, the parable of
the mustard seed comes to mind All one can do is to sow seeds, some die
some become corrupt and bear bad fruit, some grow in better ways.

that just seems to be part of the journey.

John:
I'm not sure  what point Arlo is making with Toynbee/Campbell's "reborn",
except that its just a process that occurs naturally as cultures create
civilizations which grow old and die and there's really nothing to be done,
in the end.

Ron:
Thats what prompted my question of whether or not philosophy is worth 
persueing in the light of this realization.


> [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?
>
>
John:  I'd say unequivocally yes.  Always.  Loving wisdom, makes one wise.
Loving the reputation for being wise, however, leads to foolishness.
That's the intellectual / social conflict.

Ron:
Which I believe the topic of the Socratic dialogs of Plato delves into, 
particularly
concerning the Sophists. We first begin to see the term Philosophy emerge
as a distinction from Sophistry as a better approach to wisdom.