[MD] Pirsig's theory of truth

[John Carl]

better late than never, Bo.

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 11:13 AM, <skutvik at online.no> wrote:
>
>
> I know that you regard me as having perverted views, but here is THE
> point. The social age - when that level was leading edge - did not
> regard language as some harmless subjective "in here" shadow of the
> objective real world "out there", but as a powerful and magical (as we
> use the term) means to - f. ex - sway animal to come to their hunting
> grounds or pitfalls by correctly performed rituals, cave paintings,
> whatever. The ancients surely regarded the world "wolf" as different
> from the real specimen and "crying wolf" was a bad joke even then,
> yet, the border wasn't absolute. Again, intellect occurred when this
> border became reality's fundament. Get it?
>
>
Of course!  You make it so clear, how could I not get it?

Kidding, of course.  You lost me soon after my regard of your views as
perverted.  That much I do agree with.  Social ages, biological ages.  blah,
blah blah.  What a mishmash of conjecture and bad anthropology you offer.
 Culture can't be interpreted so blithely across the millinia with
certainty, and you do so as a prop for your views, but your views are
already based upon the views needing a prop.

Honest Bo.  Genesis makes more sense, and have you read THAT lately?




> Now, the social level is not a past, but part of our constitution, the
> intellectual level has just positioned itself on top of it, yet religions -
> even the very intellect-influenced Christendom - shows remnants of
> this language-not-yet-subjective-separated-from-objects reality with
> prayers and ceremonies to sway God to support our cause. In the all-
> social Muslim culture language (signs) has not parted company with
> reality at all. To mock the prophet in words or by cartoon-drawings is a
> deadly sin. While the  intellect-steeped West regards this as infantile,
> language isn't reality, a drawing is just ... to burn a flag or an effigy
> will
> not hurt anyone ... etc. ad infinitum.
>


Hmmm... yes.  Just what I was thinking.  etc. ad infinitum.  We make a world
for ourselves, people it with concepts and go around showing it to people
and say, "look at the world!"

My only response could be to mouth the word yes and shake the head no.



> Here is my own quandary: On one hand I'm a staunch "intellectualist",
> super-happy for this level to have lodged on top of the social level and
> "debunked" it in our part of the world. On the other hand it is the
> blockage to reach the MOQ



yes, that's quite a quandry you've constructed for yourself.  Very nice.  I
wouldn't want to live with it, but I can see it on a postcard.



>  -  no level recognises any "movement"
> above itself  - so (if you understand the infinite depth of my thinking)




How does one understand infinite depth, anyway?  Just go a bit deeper I
guess and then look up.



> I
> have speculated if not DMB & Co's intellectual (i.e. SOM-) "moq" is
> best for all foreseeable future. Intellect hasn't "conquered the world"
> and the true MOQ will weaken intellect. But on the third hand, it is the
> MOQ that has given me this view of things, can the genie be put back
> into the bottle?
>
>
> Bodvar
>
>

Well first, I think you need to wait a bit.  Wait till all the snow is
melted and it's a real nice warm day.   Take a weekend.  Find a comfy
hammock and roomy and private meadow and lay in the sun and take some
hallucinogens and get back to me the following morning.

Then we can talk about genies, bottles and worlds.

Till then, I don't think I can really be much help.

But hey, lets stay in touch.

John