Hi Steve.
Foreword:
What everything turns round - and has created the SOL
interpretation - is orthodoxy's unholy confusion of INTELLECT
and INTELLIGENCE, and as long as this issue isn't solved this
dispute will go on. I had hoped that you would see the snag but
...alas.
12 Dec. you said:
> Symbolic logic is a lot of "p implies q and q implies r then p implies
> r" kind of stuff. talk about inverses, converses and contrapositives .
> Definitely intellectual activity in my book and I think in the common
> definition of intellect that Pirsig wants to use.
The mere term "symbolic logic" presupposes the intellectual level
because its "symbols/whats symbolized" is implied. But DOING
calculations or logical thinking is INTELLIGENCE and something
even animals are capable of.
> Solving equations algebraically is also normally considered
> intellectual activity yet contains no subjects and objects.
The symbols are subject(ive) what they symbolize are object(tive)
- even if abstracts - quantities, functions etc.. The rules of how to
manipulate these symbols may be more complicated than adding
or subtracting (I never mastered it) but principally the same as
moving stones on the ground or "beads" on an abacus,
something humankind has done for aeons, it just never occurred
to them that these were "symbols that stood for something else".
> Steve:
> This is circular reasoning since you determine what "social age
> people" and I suppose "intellectual age people" are based on your same
> SOL interpretation. (Are we in the intellectual age now? Cool!)
By "social age" I mean the time before the intellectual level had
emerged anywhere on earth. That the Western world now is
dominated by it is elementary. What's not so elementary is
caused by the confusion of intellect and intelligence so when I
claim that the social level still dominates whole cultures, it sounds
like they are less than human, but that is wrong. The muslim
world is social value focussed, but the individuals are as
intelligent as intelligence comes.
> Pirsig described people as composed of all four types of patterns plus
> the ability to respond to DQ. I take the social age to be a time when
> the social level value patterns took precedence over intellectual
> patterns, i.e., when the social good pertaining to an intellectual
> pattern was considered more important than it's intellectual truth. I
> don't think of it as some time when there were no intellectual
> patterns.
Existence - humans included - has not always been composed of
all 4 levels. There must have been a time when the inorganic
level was all there was, and one when biology was leading edge,
and so on upwards
Nowadays, even if social value dominates certain cultures I
guess everyone feels the tug of intellectual value, that's what the
Jihadists tries to avoid .... at all costs. Perhaps there still are
tribes somewhere that are totally unaware of the intellectual
reality. The Oriental culture have - according to Pirsig -
transcended the intellectual level and can at will turn better
SOMists (technicians) than the West, but can also also turn
worse "socialists" like the Red Khmer in Cambodia f.ex..
> Steve:
> The MOQ has no problem with truth.
The silly "many truth" sentence it looks like a problem. Truth (the
objective kind and there is no other) emerged as told in ZAMM.
> Steve:
> The MOQ says experience is Quality which can be thought of as divided
> into 4 types of static patterns of value and DQ. The MOQ is part of
> experience and therefore must fit into one or a combination of types
> of patterns of value.
The container logic that Pirsig himself applied (and disregarded)
doesn't impress you? I have spent all my arguments on showing
that a "system" isn't part of the reality it creates, but when logic
don't make a dent ...phew.
> Steve:
> It is true. Quality is reality and the MOQ is a theory. I don't see
> any fault with saying so.
Except that this is SOM under a thin MOQ guise.
> Steve:
> I don't see a necessity of SOM thinking in distinguishing symbols and
> what they symbolize.
Sure, you can say "no" to anything I say, but something as plainly
SOM as "symbols/what's symbolized" I can hardly think of.
> SOM is the western philosophical tradition. It is not all the world's
> thought. SOM is an issue of making subjective/objective knowledge and
> appearance/reality distinctions.
You are right, The SOM isn't valued by all the world. The said
Muslims do not regard the Koran letters (and the words and
sentences they make up) as symbols, they are God's own words.
They fight Western influence that makes Morals subjective and
"religion" an object for scientific study.
Enough. .
Bo
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/
