Hi Ian, I, too, am a little baffled by your replies:
On 19/12/2007, ian glendinning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Peter, I'm not sure I get your point ... but I've [IG] inserted a > few comments below ... > > On Dec 19, 2007 10:21 PM, Peter Corteen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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. > [IG] Or just plain "experience" ... direct involvement in something > experienced ? Plain experience starts with the inorganic; when we touch something molecules at the end of the finger are jiggled. Experience becomes vanilla flavoured via the biological substrates. I suggest some experience gets sufficiently processed at the organic level and never makes it to register as a symbol. Sorry if my language is imprecise, I don't have specialist knowledge of physiology, I'm just describing the way I see it now. > > > 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. > [IG] Can't see how. Holmes is famous for his unfathomable, intuitive crime solving, but he is also famous for his dismissive reply to his colleague: 'Elementary my dear Watson'! > > > 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; > [IG] By definition there is no such thing as "supernatural". That's > just a pejorative term used by people who find they can't explain all > natural things with S/O logic. If you are enlightened enough to > believe you can explain them, they are hardly supernatural. That's a neat side step Ian. So what experience have you had that you can't explain with words? Pirsig's Dynamic Quality? Tao? We can't define it but surely we can talk about it's effects and it's uses? > 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. > [IG] Symbol manipulation is involved in rationalising the experience > and communicating it to people who ask in e-mails, but I think the > point is that experiencing them need not involve symbols. Agreed we can by an act of will momentarily stop associating, and that's a useful thing to do. Don't think, feel! > > > 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? > [IG] No, just direct to the senses But quality is of course "ethereal" > by definition - ineffable, indefinable, insubstantial, but real > none-the-less. Again, you seem to have side stepped; what kind of thinking can we do without symbol manipulation? I suggest mystical experience is difficult to categorise because it rings so many bells all at once. Such an experience surely registers in the intellect because later we feel the need to reconsider it. But because it is such a new experience the intellect cannot so easily file it away and the experience continues to resonate 'I'. I am sure you see such a view would be SOM based. > [IG] Typically yes, once we post-rationalise the "view", but not > actually necessary in the experience. Agreed, we can experience without rationalising but when we later discuss our experience then it's via subjects and objects. > > > 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. > [IG] The symbol manipulation is involved in the implied subject > telling Pinker the story, Pinker writing it down and you and I reading > it, but not necessarily the experience of the event itself. As above, I have no problems with this. The lower levels recognise the badness ahead of the intellect. Regards -Peter 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/
