[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[118]

Hi Arlo,
Thanks for the post, some discussion below
Mark

 [Arlo]

There is still an apparent need to avoid "disagreement" and have only "an
> interpretation", and you challenge this (rightly so) and so hence hostility.
>

[Mark]
What me? Avoid disagreement?  All disagreements are based on
interpretations.  Do you think this reality has some fundamental basis that
we can describe without interpretation?  Interpretation is at the ground of
rational thought.  Has to be.  Even Math continues to come up with new
interpretations.  Don't mistake the symbol for what it is describing.

>
> [Mark]

This is why I responded cautiously to Mark's use of "interpretation", when
> he referred several times to my thoughts on non-human sociality as an
> "interpretation" of Pirsig. I think Pirsig was clear, and I don't try to
> coerce agreement where there is none. My ideas are a refutation of what
> Pirsig said. I would like to think that, given the opportunity to present
> this argument to Pirsig, he may change his position (this is how evolution
> occurs), but in the meantime trying to "prove" Pirsig "really meant" to
> include non-humans in the social-level, or that my "interpretation" of the
> social level is the correct one, is an unproductive, and frankly dishonest,
> use of time.
>

[Mark]
I don't know if caution is needed.  I am only asking "what do you have to
say about such and such".  I know what Pirsig writes, everybody does, I can
look that up.  I have no interest in proving what Pirsig meant, I am
interested in what you mean.  Pirsig is Pirsig, this is MOQ, not Pirsig.  If
we make MOQ = Pirsig, then there is really nothing to discuss because that
is already written, it is said and done.  I am interested in where Pirsig
has taken you..  This is not a forum to support Pirsig, there is no value in
that.  Often when I see Pirsig brought in, I see that as a deflection, like
referring to the Bible.  There is no such thing as the correct or best
interpretation of MOQ; it is a work in progress.   Pirsig started it,
nothing more.  This is a discussion group, so I thank you for your answer
which provided me some indication of what you believe to be intellectual
with an example.  There was no more to it than that, perhaps you are over
thinking my intent

>
> [Arlo]

I also think this is fallout from the "Intellect=SOM" paradigm. You, the
> "evil, deluded, conniving, blind, acerdimic-SOMist", are taking the brunt of
> the animosity from a crowd that aggressively pursues an anti-intellectual
> agenda.
>

[Mark]
Just to be on the record, I do not subscribe to intellect being SOM.  I
believe that much of its expression must be in subjects and objects, but not
the underlying phenomenon, which requires mythology, faith, math, hard
definitions on qualities, logic, spirituality, and so forth.  Intellect
cannot be separated from all that, it doesn't stand alone but is a
synthesis, in the same way that life requires the inorganic and forces of
nature.

>
> [Arlo]

As I said before, I think Marsha does this out of a effort to make intellect
> subservient to the aesthetic, the code of art, and I think in many ways
> draws back to the romantic/classic rift in ZMM.
>

[Mark]
Since we are gossiping here, I would say that I think that Marsha thinks
that it is you who are making the romantic subservient to the classical.  We
could say that all of this is art as is presented in the title of ZMM.  Just
to simplify a highly complex subject by dividing it into two forms, we are
making the romantic subservient to the classical.  The notion of a well
delineated separation has classical undertones, it is the knife of SOM.
 Intuition does not have that knife.  The intellect comes from both, and
from whatever other divisions we can make about the experience.  It is
probably more analogue than digital.  The division in ZMM was an analogy of
this.  If you take it literally then you will get stuck.

>
> 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
>