[MD] e: Reading & Comprehension

[MarshaV]

On May 11, 2010, at 2:37 PM, Arlo Bensinger wrote:

> [Marsha]
> I think viewed from a new perspective, most can retain their usefulness by an understanding that:
> 
> [Arlo]
> Why should a level have to be viewed from a new perspective to retain its usefulness? Seen this way, "intellect" is an evolutionary problem until something evolves beyond it. No other levels are this way.

The 
way 
you 
are 
stripping 
out 
parts 
of 
this 
dialogue
is 
making 
it 
useless 
for 
me.  

I 
guess 
you 
think 
that 
all 
intellectual 
patterns 
are 
perfect.  

I 
think 
they 
could 
use 
a 
perspectives 
such 
as:  

RMP:
If the past is any guide to the future this explanation must be taken
provisionally; as useful until something better comes along. One can
then examine intellectual realities the same way he examines paintings
in an art gallery, not with an effort to find out which one is the ‘real’
painting, but simply to enjoy and keep those that are of value. There are
many sets of intellectual reality in existence and we can perceive some
to have more quality than others, but that we do so is, in part, the result
of our history and current patterns of values. (Pirsig, 1991, p.103)”

    (McWatt,Anthony,MOQ Textbook)   


> 
> [Marsha]
> How could intellect the have evolved any differently is not a practical question because they are what they are.
> 
> [Arlo]
> What you are saying is that they could never have been anything else.

No, 
I 
am 
saying 
it 
is 
what 
it 
is.  

What 
it 
could 
have 
been 
is 
not 
the 
issue.   


> "Intellect" is by your definition "SOM". So, again, what is the lament of ZMM? What is it Aristotle did to the teachings of the Sophists that is a problem? If ALL intellect is SOM, and Aristotle is the grandfather of SOM, then ZMM should champion his cause, not bemoan it. But ultimately it wouldn't matter unless the Sophists were teaching "social dominance", since Aristotle's victory for SOM/Intellect could not have been anything if the Sophists were also peddling SOM/Intellect.

The 
lament 
is 
based 
on 
a 
misconception:  
that 
entities (self & object) 
exist 
independently.    


> 
> [Marsha]
> Just like the social level was altered by a broader perspective, so the intellectual level can be transcended by a higher point-of-view.
> 
> [Arlo]
> How was the social level altered by a broader perspective? You mean "intellect"? I though intellect's meddling with society was a symptom of its SOM underpinnings.

Do 
you 
want 
a 
history 
of 
intellectual 
ideas?   

I 
don't 
know 
what 
you 
thought,
 or 
your 
reasons 
for 
thinking 
it.    

Maybe 
that 
is 
something 
you 
would 
like 
to 
explain.   



> I won't comment on your switching from "altered" to "transcended" just yet, but its another one of those "ugly" things that happens when you try to condemn intellect to be "just SOM".

Ugly?  

You 
are 
sooooo 
judgmental.



 
___