At 05:21 PM 12/19/2007, you wrote: >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
Greetings Peter, You've asked about mystical experiences in a culture that doesn't accept them. You might better ask about irrational experiences, which are quickly dismissed as drug induced, or brain chemistry. Marsha >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 "Â…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/ 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/
