[MD] Bo vs. Bob

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Sat Jul 17 08:43:49 PDT 2010 

Ron,

I cannot comment about Aristotle's definition of 
metaphysics; that is true, and I didn't comment 
on Aristotle's definition of anything, but offered 
a simple, modern definition:

met·a·phys·ics  -  Philosophy  The branch of philosophy 
that examines the nature of reality.  


Marsha  


On Jul 17, 2010, at 11:25 AM, X Acto wrote:

> Marsha,
> Then you can't make a comment one way or the other
> about it can you?
> 
> -Ron
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:08:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo vs. Bob
> 
> 
> Ron,
> 
> I am not much concerned with Aristotle 
> since it would be too easy to translate ancient 
> greek by modern points-of-view.  Scholars are
> still arguing what is the proper interpretation.  
> 
> 
> Marsha 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jul 17, 2010, at 10:56 AM, X Acto wrote:
> 
>> Metaphysics
>> 
>> that which comes after physics
>> 
>> regarding the complete works of Aristotle.
>>   as it sat in the library of Alexandria.
>> 
>> Aristotle called it a collection of class notes
>> concerning the theory of explanation.
>> 
>> a misnomer
>> 
>> on a collection of works most philosophers have not read.
>> 
>> so how can one make a comment about any of it.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
>> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 1:27:33 AM
>> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo vs. Bob
>> 
>> 
>> Greetings,
>> 
>> Seems to me the subject line is a setup!  
>> 
>> 
>> Marsha  
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> p.s.  
>> 
>> met·a·phys·ics  -  Philosophy  The branch of philosophy 
>> that examines the nature of reality.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 16, 2010, at 8:44 PM, Matt Kundert wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi John,
>>> 
>>> John said:
>>> The thing is, we're born at the top of the mountain.  All the 
>>> paths (intellectual games and religions) lead DOWNWARD, 
>>> away from the top of the mountain from that point.
>>> 
>>> Matt:
>>> That is an interesting gestalt switch.  I think it's _misleading_, 
>>> but that's because I think the kind of "back to origins!" 
>>> rhetoric that is latent in almost every religious and intellectual 
>>> tradition is misguided (the kind of rhetoric that has us talking 
>>> about how DQ the baby is).  What about this: being born is 
>>> like falling from the sky, out of nowhere, to the ground.  
>>> Being intellectual is climbing that mountain, or building that 
>>> Tower of Babel, trying to get back to what you imagine as 
>>> the origins.  The misleading bit of the very traditional Fall 
>>> Story is that there is somewhere to get back to.  I think the 
>>> better part of 2500 years of Western philosophy has taught 
>>> me that there's no there there.  The climb up the mountain is 
>>> real, as is the process of climbing into a culture (the length 
>>> of the "fall"), but there is no heaven (which has its parallel in 
>>> the Eastern notion of Enlightenment) where you completely 
>>> evacuate your connection to "fallen" life, the world.  I think 
>>> that's just a specific kind of effect created, like everything 
>>> else, from a specific kind of connection to the world.
>>> 
>>> John said:
>>> As far as the point that intellect = SOM, I agree completely 
>>> with Bo. That's just the definition of the term and the 
>>> metaphysical reality of the concepts.  Intellect is only half 
>>> the evolved human consciousness, however, and Pirsig 
>>> calling the 4th level "intellectual" was due to Pirsig's 
>>> particular blind spot - the one that Phaedrus hated and 
>>> overthrew in ZAMM.
>>> 
>>>> From my perspective today, (and I'd claim from the snip of 
>>> the Oxford DVD that Mary shared, Pirsig's as well)  It should 
>>> have been called something indicating the 
>>> Intellectual/Artistic continuum  and perhaps we wouldn't 
>>> have suffered so much conflict and strife in our attempt at 
>>> making this map back up the mountain.
>>> 
>>> Because Intellect IS SOM.  Make no mistake about that.
>>> 
>>> Matt:
>>> Might you more systematically deploy the kinds of 
>>> definitions you are using for your terms.  Because, 
>>> argumentatively speaking, you beg the question about 
>>> whether intellect is SOM or not when you define it that 
>>> way.  The obvious response is, "Well, of course 'intellect is 
>>> SOM' if you _define_ it that way.  What if you don't?"  
>>> Which means we need to talk about what parts of reality 
>>> are being picked out by our terms, and then whether they 
>>> fit together in the specified kind of way (and then whether 
>>> Pirsig also thinks they fit together in the specified kind of 
>>> way).
>>> 
>>> For example, do you differentiate between a 
>>> "subject/object distinction" and a "subject/object 
>>> metaphysics"?  That'd be a good place to start.  And then, 
>>> "how do you define metaphysics and the performance of 
>>> that activity (if it is an activity)?"
>>> 
>>> You seem to be saying that you wish the levels had been 
>>> named Inorganic/Biological/Social/Consciousness, with 
>>> the top level broken into, roughly, Classic and Romantic, 
>>> as Pirsig had it in ZMM.  Right?  If that is so, then--moving 
>>> to Pirsig interpretation--you'd need to defend the notion 
>>> that in ZMM (or, in some other complicated inferential 
>>> pattern based on what he's said), Pirsig defined "classic" 
>>> as "SOM."  That doesn't strike me as true, but I haven't 
>>> read ZMM in a long while (and have no complex 
>>> interpretational pattern on hand).  The interpretation of 
>>> "the S/O distinction as classic" strikes me as decent, but 
>>> I'd need to know more about what you mean by 
>>> "metaphysics," and how you differentiate (or relate) 
>>> Pirsig's enemy in ZMM (dialectic) to his enemy in Lila 
>>> (SOM), and both to how you perceive a reconstruced, 
>>> I've-successfully-defeated-my-enemy version of any of 
>>> these items (i.e., are you saying there's no difference 
>>> between SOM before and after any critique of it?).
>>> 
>>> These, I think, might be some of confusions that haunt 
>>> appreciation of what ideas hide in the slogan 
>>> "intellect=SOM."
>>> 
>>> Matt
>>>                         
>>> _________________________________________________________________
>>> The New Busy is not the old busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox.
>>> http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_3
>>> 3
>>> 3
>>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___
>> 
>> 
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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


 
___

More information about the Moq_Discuss mailing list