[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[X Acto]

Have to agree with Khoo,
This is the most appearent case against SOL.
It is a culturaly chauvenistic prejudical view.

And for some, thats the whole point.

 to feel all superior and proud 

with minimal reflection




 


----- Original Message ----
From: Khoo Hock Aun <khoohockaun at gmail.com>
To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
Sent: Thu, May 6, 2010 11:19:31 AM
Subject: Re: [MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

Arlo, succintly put, and your three paragraphs accurately captures our
collective and total disdain for an approach and worldview which is
inherently arrogant and civilisationally hegemonic. Defintely not the way to
go. Best Regards, Khoo.

On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 10:55 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Andre]
>
> I apologize for having been abrupt and terse Marsha when you asked for full
> quotes plus explanation. A summary you will find in Anthony's PhD. More
> stuff, as said, in LILA and the LC.
>
> [Arlo]
> In the years I've been here, this impasse has been insurmountable. What I
> find interesting is that no other "level" is so assaulted, so denigrated, so
> demonized, as the "awful" intellectual level. By casting it as "just SOM",
> it is forever condemned as an "obstacle" in an otherwise clean trajectory to
> harmony. Rather than expanding rationality, as was Pirsig's goal, we have
> his highest moral (static) level reduced to a incurable disease in the
> silent, harmonic landscape of "inorganic-biological-social" bliss.
>
> What has been interesting over the years is to witness the psychology
> behind this. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, Bo's SOLAQI seems to
> be an attempt to place "Western Culture" as the morally dominant worldview,
> and reduces all non-Western worldviews to "social". That is, "we" (Western
> cultures) are "intellect",  non-Western cultures are "just social", and so
> our superiority can be claimed. Platt, on the ironic other hand, demands
> intellect be reduced to SOM as a way of causally dismissing "intellect" as
> broken or inferior, it becomes just another "Boogeyman" in an otherwise
> tiring and cliche-ridden anti-intellectual crusade. Marsha, although this
> will likely draw her ire, has probably the best intentionality at dismissing
> "intellect" to promote a more artistic, "merry prankster" approach to life.
> What I think she misses is that it was the malady of a subject-object
> primacy within intellect that the MOQ was attempting to cure, it is an
> expansive philosophy, not a condemnational one. It is a uniting of
> classical/romantic approaches, not a dismissal of one and a championing of
> the other. The Buddha rests just as comfortably in semiotics as in
> gardening.
>
> But then my own psychology says intellect is worth saving, there is a great
> value in it, and I think Pirsig's placement of it as the highest moral order
> shows he feels similarly. The MOQ is not a "burn down the universities"
> philosophy, it is a "reclaim the universities" philosophy. It does not
> condemn "science", it saves it. It does not dismiss rationality, but it
> expands its power. As DMB pointed out, the goal of the MOQ is beautiful
> science and intelligent art. The SOL view offers us neither.
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
>



-- 

khoohockaun at gmail.com
6016-301 4079
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