Chris & Moqtalk. On 6 Feb. you wrote:
> I have thought abut what you have said, and I find it very > interesting. To define the intellectual level as the ability to reason > about the world and one self as separate seems reasonable (no pun > intended). I haven't really described it all to well here, and that > needs to be bettered I think. Because As we talked about the possible > emergence of an intellectual way of analyzing the world (as being > separate from it in a SOM sense, though not necessarily the way it was > hammered out by the Greeks, but not to far from it either) Yes, the intellectual level has evolved like all levels have, the first Greek thinker's groping for "what is imperishable in the affairs of men" is as far from the modern Quantum Physic's as the amoeba is from the mammal organism, yet it's an evolution along the same axis (biology along its own axis that is) > and of the assumed regression of the level as such in the Middle Ages, > the need for examination of this very thing, intellectualising (in a > MOQ perspective) becomes apparent. And also very helpful in > understanding the whole of history I'd say. I can for instance mention > the analyzing of beliefs in "Magic" that were both accepted and exposed > to persecution during the late Middle Ages (a very Dynamic time if any) You are right. The late Middle Age's Christendom condemned the "black magic", yet accepted the white kind. Later on when the intellectual attitude had become even more pronounced, God became an enlightenment "spokesman" - the Grundtvig type Christendom that dominated Denmark/Norway for a period ( I don't know about Sweden). OK this is another history. > - the analyzing of this is difficult, because there isn't really any > clarity as to what is being dealt with. All of this gives me more ideas > of different things that could and should be researched more carefully. You are d .... right! The MOQ is a powerful tool in analyzing the past and present - possibly even for forecasting the future. > Well, I'll continue thinking about this, but just a couple of > questions to you Bo: First, I never got what SOL stood for (excuse my > ignorance) Do continue to think! IRegarding the SOL it's just a short form of the SOLAQI acronym (subject/object logic as Quality's intellect). > and secondly, do you find the definition of the intellectual level I > wrote above correct (so to speak)? A little nit-picking. It sounds as if the "ability to reason" is the primary intellectual asset while the "self/world" (S/O distinction) is secondary, but it's the S/O distinction which is the hub. I think you understand. In my former post I ended by saying that from inside intellect (inside SOM) its subjective part has come to be identified with the term "intellec", and when this is carried over into the MOQ's 4th. level it wrecks it. Hope you understand this too MVH 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/
