[MD] Moving On

[Ian Glendinning]

#4 (+1 minor correction)

Marsha, it's Iain McGilchrist doing most of the talking and the book
being plugged is his "The Master and his Emmisary". Bryan is the
journalist facilitating the discussion.

Ian
Over and out.


On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 3:42 PM, MarshaV <valkyr at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> Great talk by Bryan Appleyard!!!  Thanks for posting it.  Think I'd like to read the book.
>
>
> Marsha
>
>
>
> On May 4, 2012, at 7:22 AM, Ian Glendinning wrote:
>
>> Hi Folks (#4 of the day).
>>
>> I'm disappointed that recent discussions all lead back to definitions
>> of intellect, or rather not that they lead back there, but that they
>> remain a fixation, a block to leading anywhere else.
>> One of the reasons I was always happy to work with Bo's arguments
>> (even though I didn't agree with his conclusions) was that it was
>> about the nub of our problem.
>>
>> I've never been about precisely documenting the MoQ, any better than
>> Pirsig had already written about it. I continue to be about doing
>> something with the MoQ to improve how human minds - mine included -
>> inhabit the world. Improve, progress, as in better, as in good. (I
>> respect that others have different aims and motivations.)
>>
>> My thesis is quite simple.
>>
>> When Pirsig was writing about intellect he was writing about intellect
>> as it had become, post-enlightenment, classical objective rational
>> intellect. I have no doubt this is what Pirsig means by intellect, and
>> I have no doubt that kind of intellect is what is "reified" in the
>> level of Intellectual SPV's. (But lets not add arguments about  the
>> definition of reified to those about the definition of intellect.)
>> This is all I mean by GOF-Intellect.
>>
>> Pirsig's point was that there is something beyond that. The MoQ way of
>> thinking - where the world also involves radical empirical experiences
>> - pre-conceptual - that is we know them before any attempt to
>> conceptualize them (and exchange emails using words). And we know the
>> value if using them in the real world without needing to conceptualize
>> and define them - they are forever poorly defined in any
>> GOF-Intellectual sense - but valuable. (Things that were already well
>> known to non-intellectual schools of thought, like Zen Buddhism for
>> example.)
>>
>> The exiting thing for me has been that this is so consistent with
>> everything written on evolved brains and minds since Pirsig originally
>> wrote.
>> Read Iain McGilchrist "Master and Emissary"
>> Read "Thinking Fast and Slow"
>> Read Jonathan Haidt "The Righteous Mind"
>> Listen to Bryan Appleyard and Iain McGilchrist
>> http://www.wellcomecollection.org/whats-on/events/the-divided-mind.aspx
>>
>> The depressing thing about MD is being stuck in "intellectual" debates
>> about "intellect".
>> No one is anti GOF-Intellect, I simply know we all believe there is
>> something more, because none of us can find a definition we can agree
>> on ? For me that's a good thing. That's why we appreciated Pirsig's
>> work.
>>
>> I don't want to see the debate limited, or the wonder of MoQ "reduced"
>> in any reductionist way - but we have to "get over ourselves".
>>
>> Ian
>> 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
>
>
>
> ___
>
>
> 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