[MD] Bo vs. Bob

MarshaV valkyr at att.net
Sat Jul 17 08:58:41 PDT 2010 

Ron,

You finished your post with "so how can one make a 
comment about any of it."   

Try using the rules of grammar if you expect to be
properly understood.


Marsha 





On Jul 17, 2010, at 11:50 AM, X Acto wrote:

> Marsha,
> And all I did was comment
> on it was a branch of philosophy
> that examines explanations.
> 
> -Ron
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
> To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
> Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:43:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [MD] Bo vs. Bob
> 
> 
> 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
>>>> 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
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> 
> 
> 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