Donald T Palmgren (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 19 Aug 1998 18:20:27 +0100
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998, Platt Holden wrote:
> Hi Donny and LS:
> I don't mind being accused of "human centrism" (or "life chauvinistic" for
> that matter). It's usually meant as a put down by science types who assume
> the world exists independently of our observations in spite of contrary
> evidence from their own quantum physicists. So bring on their flack. We can
> handle it.
Okay. I'm w/ you. :)
> Well, if you say so. I'm having enough trouble with understanding MOQ-speak
> without trying to figure out Hegel-speak. To put it as simply as I can, what
> sets S-O thinking apart from animals (besides logic) is that even though
> they may know that they are separate from others (even cells seem to know
> that), they don't know that they know. We do. That's the kicker. When you
> know that you know you're egaged in S-O thinking, you've arrived at the
> Intellectual Level.
I agree except for the last line. pirsig says the first
intelectual value patterns formed in the 6th cen when Socrates drank the
hemlock. But I think humans 'knew they knew' stuff well before then -- at
least 5,000 years before then. That's why I'd identify S-O thinking
primarily as a social value -- one that was originaly in service of
Biological (Darwinian) values, but evolved into something else.
> Well, you've pinpointed what scares me about Hegel. His "I that is we and we
> that is I" is the collectivist mantra in a nutshell. His "Spirit" could
> describe an ant hill. Surely we're above that level.
We'll it should include an anthill because Spirit is suposed to
include everything the same way pirsig's 'Quality' is. Does the
Upanishad line *Tat twam asi* (that thou are) give you the same
'collectivist' willies? It's the same idea. 'Brahman' is also supposed
to exclude nothing.
TTFN (ta-ta for now)
-- homepage - http://www.moq.org/lilasquad unsubscribe/queries - mailto:email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 16:43:38 CEST