> [Bo stated to Ham]
> > > You don't see value as intellectual, and that's
> right: Intellect is
> > > supposed to be seen as value.
[SA previously]
> > Thus, intellect is quality. quality is value is
> moral Bo, this is
> > where I believe the distinction between your view
> and my view takes place.
[Bo]
> What the inscrutable Ham means by "not seeing value
> as intellectual" I leave to the wind, I just
commented
> that the MOQ'a
> intellect is a static value level.
Are you agreeing with me that intellect is a
static quality, thus, intellect is quality? I doubt
it, but you refer to something akin to it above.
[Bo]
> This and the fact that there are
> other terms for quality ("value", "morals" and
> "goodness") is plain,
> but how it's possible to differ over this point is
> beyond me.
Well, you state that quality is above intellect
and other static levels. I see static levels as
static 'quality'. You raise quality above these
static levels, and I recognize these levels are static
quality.
[Bo]
> However, I believe that the definition of the term
> "intellect" is
> what all is about. Pirsig doesn't really define any
> level and the
> first 3 are self-evident, although a "static
> inorganic pattern" is
> worlds apart from "matter", this difference can be
> compared to
> the shift from the old Ptolemaian cosmology to the
> Copernican"
> about which Pirsig says in ZAMM "everything changed
> yet all
> remained the same", and so on upwards through the Q
> hierarchy.
Yes, change.
[Bo]
> But when it comes to the 4th. level the problem is
> that the term
> has an erroneous definition among the general public
> different
> from the correct dictionary one. The former is more
> close to
> "intelligence" while the latter is the correct S/O
> one, and when
> this error is transferred to the MOQ it creates
> confusion. My
> Oxford Advanced says about INTELLECT:
> "Power of the mind to reason contrasted with
> feeling and instinct."
> Mind we may drop - what is not power of mind? REASON
> (I know
> no other reason than the objective kind) contrasted
> with
> FEELING and what's more subjective than emotions?)
> Instinct
> (biology) we may drop in this context.
Are you saying that the Oxford Advanced knows the
moq? I doubt it.
[Bo]
> In other words intellect is the distinction between
> what's objective
> and what's subjective - the S/O. I've pointed to
> since God knows
> when, but it's water on a goose's back. Intellect to
> you (all) is all
> mental activity, thus when an animal shows great
> prowess and
> people of old made up mythologies around their
> social/emotional
> reality it was "intellect".
What about mu? This is a good non-dividing
intellectual pattern. I'm pointing out that another
kind of 'mental activity' exists that isn't
necessarily s/o. It is non-s/o. It is very logical
too. But it probably takes some practice.
[Bo]
> This is American and English, but exactly the same
> misconception is found in my native Norwegian and I
> guess in all Indo-European Languages.
Your alone in the desert, as you say.
leaves,
SA
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
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.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
