Ron.
18 January you wrote:
> I'm hanging out of the discussion to work up a proper response. I
> think the original Greek first division of their system, the logical
> classification upon which every bit of their logic rests on, is the
> division of subject and object. It is a convenient abstract starting
> point, like zero and whole numbers.
Right, ZAMM presents the emergence of the intellectual level (as
SOM) so splendidly that it hardly need any refinement. It wasn't a
"division of subject and object" at first, rather the emergence of
TRUTH (that truth is "objective" is correct) that seen from those
days struggled to rise above "mere opinion" (that opinion is
"subjective" is also correct).
> I know personally that other cultures have intellect and
> philosophize
Your experience is (I guess) limited to the Western world and it
has the intellectual level as top notch (the social level is beneath
it, but that's another point) besides your "have intellect" smacks
of "are intelligent" as does "philosophize" smack of "think". These
things has nothing to do with the 4th. level.
> Yet still view themselves as part of the creator with brothers and
> sisters Who are also part of the creator. This is how they saw
> things. "Primitive" cultures chart stars and work a mathematics
> without ever conceiving them selves separate from the universe
> around them. Doubtless SOM has been the most successful and
> pragmatically taken as truth on this merit alone.
Excellent observations, however "mathematics" smacks of
"mathematicians", but they hardly worked out theorems and
proofs, they merely knew how to calculate. I.e: were as
INTELLIGENT as such comes. It's the intelligence-intellect
confusion that creates all nonsense around the MOQ
> If I am soft on this issue it's only because of a practical
> skepticism Based on the knowledge that humans anthropomorphize.
Right, it was the tendency to anthropomorphize. that SOM tried to
escape from. The - then - modern Greeks saw that the old
mythological gods were human creations ("subjective"). This
anthropomorphizing tendency will never be completely overcome
- what in the MOQ is translated to intellect being "out of" society.
> I find it contradictory for Bo to defend the idea of SOM as absolute
> intellect Theory then admonish us As SOM-ish for suggesting other
> forms of existing intellect(like Moq) Marxist collective ideology,
> Confucianism, Vedic, ect.
You too my son ;-) The MOQ isn't SOM consequently not an
intellectual pattern, how can the totality of the MOQ fit inside one
of its own sub-subsets? Well I know only too well, its because
most people regard the MOQ to be a mere "thought" system and
as such not occupying any "space" - it's SUBJECTIVE!!!! See
how mired they are in SOM.
> I do however feel that from a practical standpoint, assuming SOM as
> intellect As per our culture, has Pragmatic merit. It directly
> applies MoQ to the situation in a terms of an applicable
> understanding.
Good! "Beggars can't be choosers" (me the beggar :-)
> Platt uses it to judge social situations, Dan uses it to fix
> motorcycles But as soon as you take it for an absolute understanding
> you close the Door on dynamic quality and it becomes another SOM
> type intellect And Bo must be careful of this.
Thanks Ron, this saved the day. I had written you off, but this
shows a deep insight.
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/
