[MD] [Bulk] Re: Humanism

[John Carl]

Oh geez, I really didn't mean to get this deeply drawn into this, but I can
see I am, whether I will or no.

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. I've said before that I think Bo's "SOL" had produced quite a
> strange lot of bedfellows, but the common theme is one where "intellect" is
> to be aggressively considered (in nearly every form) "the enemy". Where
> Pirsig pursued a path of expanding rationality, these folk seek to condemn
> it "in toto" (and if right now you are hearing the opening beats to Africa,
> then my work here is done), or at the least neuter it.
>
>
John:  I love that song!  Tho I don't quite follow your allusion.

However, I would like to offer a different view.  I don't disparage
intellect, nor do I hate it nor do I want it eliminated.  I want it
expanded, put in its proper place "in the scheme of things" and utilized
correctly as the excellent tool that it is.

SOM is a metaphysical world view.  I don't think SOM is correct, a good
tool, nor any of those things that are valuable from an MoQ perspective.
Therefore, I DO NOT hold that SOM = Intellect.  But its tricky, because
intellect, isolated off and examined on its own, is derived from a world
view - SOM.  The Moq in its very essence, says that intellect cannot be
isolated and examined on its own.  Intellect has to be expanded in order to
be really meaningful.

But in the midst of this discussion of these ideas, an idea arises out of
the memory of all that has gone before.  This is actually a very old
conflict within the MoQ, eh Arlo?  And sometimes, old battles create their
own reality of "I'm tired of dealing with this".  Which is understandable.
But from an MoQ perspective, plainly wrong.  These things have to be hashed
out thoroughly, no matter how long it takes and if people can't stomache the
pain... well...

let 'em watch tv instead, is my motto.

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. From what I can tell, rather
> than resolve the conflict via integration (as Pirsig does), Marsha demotes
> intellect to "classic rationality", and elevates "romantic understanding" to
> the "code of art".


I'm not sure if you are correct in what "Marsha does", but the flag you
raise is one I'd salute.  Intellect is and should be subservient to the code
of art.  I agree completely.  However, the code of art should never, ever
abandon intellect.  Anything that the aesthetic pulls out of the magic hat,
must be examined in the cold light of rationality.  If it doesn't make
sense, then it's garbage.   Scientific  insight that's ugly, is also
garbage.  We want the dual nature of human reason to be brought to bear upon
all formulations.  That's my goal.


Arlo:


> You, then, are the "classic rationalist", stuck in the cold, grey, lifeless
> world of analyses and relationships and parts and components, and she is the
> "romantic artist" (often an integration with Lila), and so her understanding
> must be deeper than yours. When I read her responses to you, this makes
> perfect sense. YOU don't get it because you are classic square, a shallow
> intellectual concerned with hierarchies and analysis, but SHE gets it
> because she is the romantic artist who drums and paints and posts poetry.
>

She will say I am wrong, but re-read all your posts with her and tell me
> this doesn't fit the dialogue to the "T".
>
>
John:

Well hey, just speaking for myself.  I agree completely.  Except for one
small caveat.  dmb hasn't exhibited much intellectual quality either.

But overall, I find nothing but truth in you, Arlo.   Well done.

John