[MD] Babylonian intellectuals

[John Carl]

No problem Platt, call it a clarification rather than a correction.

On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 3:17 PM, <plattholden at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
>
> Thanks for the correction. I was going by what you said in post "Bo vs Bob"
> of
> July 16:
>
>  "As far as the point that intellect = SOM, I agree completely with Bo.".
>


I misspoke on that one.  I would rather say intellectualism = SOM.  The
"ism" indicating the metaphysical stance as opposed to the  S/O thinking
that comprises intellect.



>
> You also said, "Pirsig calling the 4th level "intellectual" was due to
> Pirsig's
> particular blind spot -- the one that Phaedrus hated and overthrew in
> ZAMM."
> indicating, as Bo, Mary and others do, that there's evidence of a shift in
> Pirsig's position regarding S/O rationality from his first to his second
> book.
>
>

Well I do think a shift in thinking occurs over time, in all of us!  The day
our ideas stop evolving is the day our brain ceases.  I agree there is
evidence for this shift, but I'm not satisfied there is enough evidence to
state conclusively exactly what it entails.  Or rather I'm confused enough
by Bo's verbiage to not be able to understand.

Another of my beefs with the MoQ, is that I believe the 4th level is not a
true level, in that conceptualization can grow infinitely.  As we learn new
formulations, we objectify and manipulate these objects of thought, on and
on and on.

The mental stacks just keep stacking up!

An analogy from ZAMM would be the time Phaedrus wrapped his table in string
and called it (jokingly) a sculpture.  DeWeese the artist observed this as
art and contemplated it as art, intellectually.  So too, our intellectual
and reasonable formulations at taming nature and defining reality become
philosophic objects of play and artistic objects of further expansion.  To
be intellectually analyzed anew, and on and on and on it goes.

Take care,

John