[MD] continental and analytic philosophy

[skutvik at online.no]

Matt 

Fri March 12.

Bo before:
> > You affirm my point that DMB's about MOQ's dynamic/static 
> > corresponding to James' pre-conceptual/conceptual schism 
> > is wrong. You have by the way made many good, 
> > SOL-supporting, observations of late, but I guess you'll 
> > rather be found dead than agreeing with me, thanks anyway.

Matt:
> Hey, steal what you want from me.  Just don't assume I'm 
> resisting you because you're unfashionable.  If I cared about 
> fashion, _I'd_ be more fashionable, but if you haven't noticed 
> I have my own problems.  

Wish you would be more "plain-spoken", not all these convoluted 
utterings. I don't steal from you just refer to the points which are "good" 
MOQ-talk. 

> Though I have to admit, I usually resist taking out articles of 
> faith--like becoming a Skutvikist--because I generally resist 
> taking out articles of faith.

??????????????? 

> I haven't followed any recent clarification of the disagreement
> between you and Dave, but if his point is that Pirsig's dynamic/static
> distinction matches with a pre-conceptual/conceptual distinction, then
> you've got one strong strike against thinking it doesn't in Pirsig's
> view-- there's strong evidence, via the notion of "pre-intellectual
> cutting edge of experience," that that is exactly what Pirsig thinks. 

That the LILA author agrees with James, i.e.thinks DQ/SQ 
corresponds to "pre-conceptual/conceptual" we all know. But that the 
ZAMM author thinks so I oppose vehemently. If so why didn't he 
introduce language as the "intellectual" stage*) that necessarily follows 
the "pre-intellectual"?. No, he says that INTELLECT is the subject 
(aware of a tree) objects. I.e the S/O distinction!!! 

Inside the intellectual realm however it is obvious that the object with 
trunk, branches and leaves is not a "tree" until an English-speaking 
person comes along.  

> I think it's a bad idea, but that's a separate issue from what 
> Pirsig meant and thinks is a good and bad idea.

"A separate issue" my foot, we discuss the MOQ don't we? OK, I know 
you will rather be found dead ....etc.  but a little honesty would do..  

*) Tellingly enough, he introduces language as intellec (manipulation of 
symbols)  in "Lila's Child" when he had committed himself to the non-
S/O intellect and by no means could back down. In the P.T. letter 
however he again opened for the intellect= SOM (no use speaking 
about the intellect before the Greeks) just enough for no one to be 
quite sure.

 
Bodvar