Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
[Platt]
> > That's what I thought I said -- " . . . the 4th level is the VALUE of
> > the S/O distinction" which forms the basis of SOM. (By contrast the
> > MOQ stresses the value of the DQ/SQ distinction.)
[Bo}
> Right, but the MOQ is no static intellectual level. It is the very
> Dynamic/Static Metaphysics, the said meta-level from where the level
> context is seen. Intellect is as blind as the rest to that context.
Right. Values are not intellectual. They are not symbolic. They are prior
to both.
[Platt]
> > I don't think SOM can be all of intellect
[Bo]
> Well if so we are back at start with a 4th. level that contains ideas,
> theories, metaphysics .. etc. in a SOM-mind sense.
[Platt]
> > because then you would have no place to put symbolic systems like
> > mathematics and computer code.
[Bo]
> Where would you put the symbolic system like language used long
> before the intellectual level? The hieroglyphs of the Egyptians and the
> cone (is that the name) signs of the Babylonians?. When it comes to
> mathematical and geometrical theorems they are as intellectual as
> intellect comes; proofs to show that this or that observed phenomenon
> is an objective eternal principle, why the hypotenuse always relates to
> the legs ... etc. But reckoning, calculating, in itself is logic or
> intelligence. Re. computer code it's a form of language in line with all
> languages means to communicate, convey social patterns at the social
> level and intellectual patterns at the intellectual level
Language and other symbolic systems arose at the social level as Pirsig
explains:
"Within this evolutionary relationship it is possible to see that intellect has
functions that predate science and philosophy. The intellect's evolutionary
purpose
has never been to discover an ultimate meaning of the universe. That Is a
relatively
recent fad. Its historical purpose has been to help a society find food, detect
danger, and defeat enemies. It can do this well or poorly, depending on the
concepts
it invents for this purpose." (Lila, 24)
It was later that intellect went off on purposes of its own and, as a dominant
level, became opposed to static social patterns. Recent books touting atheism
and the entire secular progressive movement is the modern day version of
intellect
attempting to dominate social patterns.
[Platt]
> > By stating "I very much regard SOM all of intellect" you are placing
> > intellect in a tight mental compartment which, as you say, transfers
> > that idea into the MOQ which "screws it up."
[Bo]
> I'm not placing intellect anywhere near a tight mental compartment.
> The S/O-derived "mental/corporeal" is an intellectual pattern and
> intellect is a mere STATIC level within the MOQ. Can't you see the
> logical fault of a sub-set of a system containing the whole system?
> Pirsig ponted out the container metaphor, but then went on to violate it
> - by placing the MOQ as an intellectual pattern.
Yes, I see the logical fault. I agree the MOQ is NOT an intellectual pattern
per se but concerned primarily with non-intellectual values that precede
concepts.
Intellect has the same logical problem in attempting to explain consciousness:
it
can't get outside of it to fully observe it. An eye cannot see itself.
Best,
Platt
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
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/
