[MD] Intellectual Level

[118]

Hi Arlo,

OK, two as symbolic language.  I have no problem with that, I just didn't
understand what you were talking about.

I will drop the interpretation angle too.  Sometimes it seems that I read
Pirsig differently than others, but that is my problem.

Thanks,
Mark

On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 2:10 PM, Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:

> [Mark]
> Could you give me an example of an abstract symbol that has no
> corresponding particular experience?
>
> [Arlo]
> "Two". Or "two-ness" if you prefer.
>
>
> Pirsig's "goal" in the MOQ was to expand the nature of rationality, not to
> condemn it. Intellect=SOM condemns rationality ipso facto. Do you feel your
> Intellect=SOM points us towards a better solution than Pirsig was after?
>

[Mark]
No I do not believe it is SOM, SOM comes out of the intellect but does not
represent it.  SOM is used for communication, but not for awareness.
 Intellect is also involved in awareness.  That is, what happens before
thoughts are constructed.

IMO of course,
Mark

>
>
>
> 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
>