DMB and Moqtalk.
10 Jan. you said:
Bo said:
> > My understanding is that the 4th. level has nothing to do
> > with brain or thinking. The static patterns do nowhere jump from a
> > material world into a mental one. The matter/mind distinction (SOM)
> > isn't valid, but merely the intellectual level itself. Do you
> > understand? Intellect is not MIND, but the MIND/MATTER divide!
dmb says:
> The intellectual level has nothing to do with thinking? What do you
> call the capacity or ability we use here every day, then?
We have discussed this since God know when and the confusion
of intelligence and the 4th. level will keep it going another
decade. I guess you have heard my arguments a million times,
but once more:
I hope you agree that there were civilized human beings before
the intellectual level (ZAMM)
....there existed civilizations in an advanced state of
development. They had villages and cities, vehicles,
houses, marketplaces, bounded fields, agricultural
implements and domestic animals, and led a life quite as
rich and varied as that in most rural areas of the world
today.
and also that these people did a lot of thinking, discussing and
speculations, both about daily chores and about existence,
maybe not in a philosophical/metaphysical sense, yet exchange
via language, so THAT is not the criterion of "intellect".
DMB ctd:
> If intellect is the only the distinction between mind and matter,
Only!? It's spells a whole new reality. It is modernity, science the
whole Western development since the Greeks. Mind/Matter is
just one very recent variety, it began the way SOM is described
in ZAMM and for you I needn't pull THAT story.
DMB ctd:
> then what is it that makes all the other distinctions? I can't make
> any sense of these assertions.
I have problems understanding what you ask, but IMO the 4th.
level began (in Europe) with the search for eternal principles,
then for truth, then via Plato to Aristotles where (ZAMM says) the
scientific attitude is born, then the first Greek sciences all
embryonic yet the start of the philosophical and scientific
avalanche.
Bo said:
> > The MOQ rejects the SOM thus there is no fundamental subject/object
> > split, no mind contrasted to matter, no inner world contrasted to an
> > outer ...etc.
dmb says:
> The MOQ says that mind and matter are derived from experience rather
> than the cause or conditions of experience.
The idea is that the social level existence knew no mind/matter
distinction in this SOM sense (ZAMM):
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. The modern mind
sometimes tends to balk at the thought of these dichotomies
being inventions and says, ``Well, the divisions were there
for the Greeks to discover,'' and you have to say, ``Where
were they? Point to them!'' And the modern mind gets a little
confused and wonders what this is all about anyway, and
still believes the divisions were there
And - wops - here we got another variety of the Newton example
that you refused to discuss. See the point, the subject/object
distinction (or mind/matter) aggregate did not exist before the
Greeks.
DMB ctd:
> The MOQ rejects the idea that all of reality is one or the other, but
> it certainly does not reject the experience from which they are
> derived. It rejects the ontological, metaphysical status of the
> subjective self and the objective reality and instead says those
> categories are just one of many possible ways to interpret experience,
> just one of many ways to divide experience. I mean, it seems you do
> not understand the problem, let alone the solution.
The MOQ rejects SOM which says that reality's fundamental split
is the Subject/Object one and introduces the DQ/SQ one. The
latter-day Pirsig may have said something about
... "rejecting the ontological, metaphysical status of the ..etc."
but one must be hell- bent on NOT admitting anything to deny
that intellectual level=S/O Even the sad latter-day Pirsig had to
admit it in the Paul Turner letter, but - of course - left a margin for
ambiguity
Bo said:
> > IMO there can't be an non-S/O intellect - that's the impossible
> > "thinking" interpretation - but perhaps philosophy presupposes an
> > objective approach, a will to find the truth. THAT one I buy!
dmb says:
> Why? Why can't there be thinking without SOM?
You are so incapable of leaving the intellect=thinking premises
that you don't read straight. I actually say (above) "there can't be
a non-S/O intellect, and that a non-S/O intellect is the result of
the impossible intellect=thinking definition.(the symbol definition
is just as impossible, that's merely language)
DMB ctd:
> What did Pirsig use to conceive and compose the MOQ? What did James
> use to write his essays on radical empiricism? What did Dewey employ
> to write about his immediate empiricism? What are you using to make
> these assertions? What about all the rest of us here at moq.org? These
> are rhetorical questions designed to put the absurdity of your view on
> display and not to be answered, but feel free to try. But of course
> you can't use your mind or intellect to answer because there is no
> such thing, right?
Take it easy, you must read my posts before throwing yourself at
the keyboard. As shown above you wish I say something that you
can easily disprove, but nothing of this applies.
Bo said:
> > SOM has dominated Western culture, but Pirsig has transcended it and the
> > MOQ is the result. Telling enough I could not make sense of Tao-te-ching
> > and Buddhism (my source was Alan Watts) but after reading ZAMM it
> > suddenly made a lot of sense.
dmb says:
> That helps to make my point. The existence of thought systems like
> Taoism, Buddhism, Transcendentalism, Radical Empiricism, Philosophical
> mysticism, the MOQ and many others are living proof that SOM is not
> the only way to conceptualize reality. That's the central reason why
> your assertions to the contrary are not valid.
As said you are too eager to disprove Bo and don't read my
posts. The above is as invalid as the up above. Intelligence (AKA
thinking or logic) is not - I repeat not - the intellectual LEVEL, but
a biological-based (neural network) capability that the social and
intellectual levels - in turn - have utilized for own purpose and
what all the said thinkers and systems have employed
By now the MOQ utilizes logical thinking to underpin ITS reality.
IMO
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/
