Hi Ian and Steve, you are both saying that intellect is not limited to only S/O thinking and Steve's Pirsig quote hints at intellect including mystical experience and intuition.
A while ago on moq_discuss I recall someone writing about deduction, induction and abduction, where all three are forms of logic, abduction being the most tenuous and the kind of reasoning employed by the fictional Sherlock Holmes; this, I suggest, accounts for your intuition. As for mystical experience; just pop in a tab. Seriously though, we'll have difficulty pinning down what we mean by 'mystical'. I once challenged others on moq_discuss to report any supernatural experiences they had had; there were a few weird stories offered but none that in my opinion did not have rational explanations. Mystical experiences are certainly highly emotional and where the experiencer believes they have gained new insight, but with the endorphins flowing and in the midst of a particularly critical situation I am still quite satisfied that again symbol manipulation is underpinning. Guys, if you are not satisfied with this then how do you account for intuition and mystical experience? perhaps you explain them as ethereal dynamic quality entering directly into the brain; top-down straight into the intellect? I am sure you see such a view would be SOM based. Steve, subjects and objects don't necessarily have to align with mind and matter. Take the short sentence that Pinker mentioned also in that same book: 'Bummer'! The implied subject refers to some awful event that has occurred, the implied object is the person to whom the said awful event has occurred. Steve, I think you are right that SOM's dualistic view of the world as composed of mind and matter, God and the World, substantial and insubstantial pose unresolvable philosophical problems, but that is a different issue to symbol manipulation, subject object logic that I have been talking about. -Peter On 19/12/2007, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Peter, I like Pinker too, and I've seen software thinking evolve > from object orientation to service orientation .. > > Just one observation on the subject at hand ... > S/O Logic as "the basis" for "the intellect" > > I'd say, and have said, yes, the basis of "GOF Intellect" historically > / in evolutionary terms ... but intellect is not limited to that kind > of S/O thinking, forever. > > Ian > > On Dec 19, 2007 10:09 AM, Peter Corteen < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Steve and Bo, > > > > I listened to a tape of 'The Language Instinct' by Steven Pinker the > other > > day. One section brought home to me that subject/object logic is the > basis > > of the intellect. Pinker shows how a dumb machine can perform logical > > deductions; that given two sentences: 'Socrates is a man' and 'All men > are > > mortal' a mechanical apparatus can move the words around to produce: > > 'Therefore Socrates is mortal'. That apparatus can always make correct > > logical deductions given two sentences in the appropriate form. > > > > There is a much more sophisticated apparatus that we can even have > simple > > conversations with and that is freely available to us from the internet > - > > the Emacs Psychiatrist. However it must be said a human can quickly > confound > > the program. Nevertheless these machines do show that symbol > manipulation > > can account for what we call thinking. In programming an algorithm or > series > > of functional steps can be treated as an object, even a mind can be > > considered as an object. > > > > As a software entwickler I should have seen these connection years ago > but > > missed it in my distracted lifestyle. > > > > -Peter > > > > > > On 19/12/2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Steve > > > > > > 17 Dec. you cited yours truly > > > > > > > > I repeat that "symbol/what's symbolized" is just one of SOM' > > > > > many facets. > > > > > > and went on: > > > > > > > I don't see why this distinction is an SOM product that we'd like to > > > > dissolve. I don't think it is JUST one of SOM's many facets for you. > > > > > It seems to be the basis of equating intellect with SOM. > > > > > > I wonder why you regard "symbol/what's symbolized" as special, > > > but for now. > > > > > > > Here are a couple quotes concerning what Pirsig means by SOM: > > > > > > > In the SOM conception "…the universe is composed of subjects and > > > > objects and anything that can't be classified as a subject or an > > > > object isn't real." > > > > > > "Objects" in the "substance" sense isn't all of SOM, the adjective > > > form is part of it, and in the most subtle ways, as in "an objective > > > fact" where the fact may be an abstract. The below is from LILA. > > > page 45 (digital) > > > > > > The defect is that subject-object science has no provision > > > for morals. Subject-object science is only concerned with > > > facts. Morals have no OBJECTIVE reality. (my caps) > > > > > > In this quote "science" is a representative for SOM and we see > > > that the trouble is that morals are considered subjective and thus > > > irreal. > > > > > > (Steve) > > > > "A subject-object metaphysics is in fact a metaphysics in which the > > > > first division of Quality-the first slice of undivided experience-is > > > > > into subjects and objects. Once you have made that slice, all of > > > > human experience is supposed to fit into one of these two boxes. The > > > > trouble is, it doesn't." > > > > > > (Bo) > > > This (involuntarily) demonstrates that the opening move of > > > Reality=Quality that can be split in arbitrary ways - the MOQ just > > > one possibility - is invalid. Quality split the S/O way is just as > > > "bad" as ordinary SOM. In other words, the opening move is > > > Reality=DQ/SQ! (inside the MOQ intellect splits Quality the S/O > > > way, but that's a static value) > > > > > > The ZAMM quote again : > > > > > > Anaxagoras and Parmenides had a listener named > > > Socrates who carried their ideas into full fruition. What is > > > essential to understand at this point is that until now there > > > was no such thing as MIND and MATTER, SUBJECT and > > > OBJECT, FORM and SUBSTANCE. Those divisions are > > > just dialectical inventions that came later. > > > > > > (Steve) > > > > I see mind/matter, subject/object, form/substance as equivalent > > > > philosophical distinction. Here Pirsig seems to be talking about the > > > > birth of Western philosophy which I don't equate with the birth of > > > > the intellectual level. Do you have evidence that Pirsig means for > > > > his intellectual level to have the same birthday as Western > philosphy? > > > > > > (Bo) > > > Pirsig started out wrong and the (what to become) SOL > > > interpretation keeps popping up, but when that happens he > > > reverts to SOM as something that intellect "invented". For > > > instance this quote (LILA p.104) > > > > > > The intellectual level of patterns, in the historic process of > > > freeing itself from its parent social level, namely the > > > church, has tended to invent a myth of independence > > > from the social level for its own benefit. Science and > > > reason, this myth goes, come only from the objective > > > world, never from the social world. The world of objects > > > imposes itself upon the mind with no social mediation > > > whatsoever. It is easy to see the historic reasons for this > > > myth of independence. Science might never have > > > survived without it. But a close examination shows it isn't > > > so. > > > > > > The 4th. level's purpose is to free itself from the 3rd. To do so he > > > says intellect has invented a myth of science and/or reason > > > (which is SOM in plain text) But what is left of intellect if SOM is > > > subtracted? He makes it sound as if there was an objective world > > > that science could claim was its source, but intellect arrived with > > > SOM that created science and all S/O's in its wake. > > > > > > Pirsig's focus was the situation in the sixties and seventies when > > > social order deteriorated. To show that intellect is dependent on > > > social stability was his agenda, but because he earlier had > > > presented intellect as some neutral facility an evil (that wasn't > > > intellect) was needed. > > > > > > > Steve: > > > > These derivatives seem to refer to the problems of western > philosophy > > > > that Pirsig called Platypi: > > > > > > "In a subject-object classification of the world, Quality is in > > > the same situation as that platypus. Because they can't > > > classify it the experts have claimed there is something > > > wrong with it. And Quality isn't the only such platypus. > > > Subject-object metaphysics is characterized by herds of > > > huge, dominating, monster platypi. The problems of free > > > will versus determinism, of the relation of mind to matter, > > > of the discontinuity of matter at the sub-atomic level, of > > > the apparent purposelessness of the universe and the life > > > within it are all monster platypi created by the subject- > > > object metaphysics. Where it is centered around the > > > subject-object metaphysics, Western philosophy can > > > almost be defined as "platypus anatomy." These > > > creatures that seem like such a permanent part of the > > > philosophical landscape magically disappear when a good > > > Metaphysics of Quality is applied." > > > > > > The SOM created its derivatives and platypus in parallel. I can't > > > date them but with the mind/matter distinction did the "how can > > > mind influence matter" paradox come to be and with the > > > nurture/nature did the enigma who of the two determines human > > > behavior arrived. > > > > > > > I disagree that "symbol/symbolized" is this sort of philosophical > > > > platypus. This seems to be an important point that you'd like to > make > > > > in order to equate the intellectual level with SOM. What is the > > > > problem with distinguishing symbols and their referrants that the > MOQ > > > > solves? In what way is symbol/symbolized inherently based on an > > > > assumption that "the universe is composed of subjects and objects > and > > > > anything that can't be classified as a subject or an object isn't > > > > real"? > > > > > > The SOM has much subtler S/O pairs. In ZAMM the development > > > of SOM is seen from Socrates' Opinion/Truth to Plato's > > > Appearance/Ideas and Aristotle's Form/Substance, but Pirsig > > > spotted the SOM under all these phases. So I see no objection to > > > the symbol/what's symbolized as an advanced S/O ...that has > > > created its own platypus, namely the language/reality one. > > > > > > Full stop! > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > 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/ > > > 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/ > 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/
