[MD] Bo vs. Bob

X Acto xacto at rocketmail.com
Sun Jul 18 05:35:54 PDT 2010 

Marsha,

so who made you the grammar police?

what gives YOU the right?

What, now we all must bow to the great Marsha's sense of Grammar?

Who made YOU the authority?

stop trying to control what I think!

it's all just inter-related patterns of value

not this not that

try dancing in the moonlight!

-Ron






 


----- Original Message ----
From: MarshaV <valkyr at att.net>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Sat, July 17, 2010 11:58:41 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] Bo vs. Bob


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
>>>> 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



___


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