dmb asked Bo: The intellectual level has nothing to do with thinking? ...Why can't there be thinking without SOM?
Bo replied: 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 says: You're not explaining anything, Bo, you're just repeating the assertion. In various ways, you insist that there can't be a non-SOM fourth level, that nothing else is possible. But that's exactly what I object to. That's what makes no sense. To show that a non-SOM way of dividing experience is possible, I have repeatedly pointed to examples of exactly that. I'm frustrated by your refusal to acknowledge these examples, with the MOQ being the one we MOQers know best. In order to maintain your position, you have to invent a whole new level of reality and construe Pirsig's thought as something other than thought. That why I asked a simple, rhetorical question, "What did Pirsig use to conceive and compose the MOQ?" And your response... Bo said: 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. dmb says: I don't understand how the existence of alternative intellectual systems can be dismissed as non-applicable. Are we talking about the intellectual level or not? Are we talking about 4th level worldviews or not? The point is to replace one set of metaphysical assumptions with an alternative, no? Like I said, "The existence of thought systems like ..the MOQ and many others are living proof that SOM is not the only way to conceptualize reality". Bo said: 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. dmb says: I read your posts but do not understand them. Thinking and logic is not intellectual but biological? Sorry Bo, but I think that's hopelessly confused and you shouldn't be surprised that people have a hard time making sense of it. What about the existence of alternatives? Seriously. How would you explain the fact that non-SOM philosophies exist? I think you have to do some back-breaking mental gymnastics to hold that view. You'd have to believe that Pirsig himself is a SOMer rather than a MOQer (which you apparently do) and other crazy things like that. As I've said before, I think you really, really NEED to investigate James and Dewey. Their work has given me a richer, deeper understanding of the MOQ and it would very likely do the same for you. _________________________________________________________________ Put your friends on the big screen with Windows Vista® + Windows Live™. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/shop/specialoffers.mspx?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_CPC_MediaCtr_bigscreen_012008 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/
