Ian, Magnus, Ron, Group.
18 March Ian wrote:
> Thanks for bringing that Pirsig phrase in Paul's letter to my
> attention. Don't know why I've never noticed its significance before.
Anyone know about Paul Turner?. He's said to run a blog, anyone
know the address?
> In his physio / bio / socio / intellectual patterns ontology he is
> "drawing lines" - for pragmatic reasons to make history useful to
> future progress - he is not saying - these lines / distinctions are
> "fundamental" or well defined beyond his deemed usefulness. Like any
> good ontology in fact.
> Debate about defintitions is breath wasted.
> Bo's contention of intellect as SOMism, is fine in terms of historical
> received wisdom, may even be what Pirsig meant too, if that makes Bo
> feel better ....
I am "feeling better" - thanks Ian - but MOQ's basic shift from
subject/object to DQ/SQ is far from pragmatic, rather an inside-
out-turn. (LILA).
He remembered a metaphor that had occurred to him of a
bug that had been crawling around in some smelly sock
all his life and now someone or something had turned the
sock inside out. The terrain he covered, the details of his
life, were all the same, but now somehow everything
seemed open and free and all the horrible confining smell
of everything was gone.
But, even the level "lines" aren't just arbitrary, particularly for the
4th. level that assumes a totally different role from thinking to a
very limited way of thinking, but I guess the 3rd. level also shifts
from - a bee-hive-like senseless milling around - to just as
intelligent creatures as the intellect-level ones, but with a different
focus for their thinking.
Ian ctd:
> But none of that says we cannot posit a "new intellect" based on MOQism
> itelf - whether we develop our understanding of level 3/4 to include
> that or posit a level 5 is a purely pragmatic convenience. Evolution is
> unstoppable.
Yes, "intellect" also undergoes an inside-out turn from SOM's
thinking itself to SOM itself (really S/O-thinking without its slash
as fundamental). The peculiar thing is that this new
understanding of intellect is also the understanding of the MOQ.
Magnus wrote to Ian: the 19th:
> > Debate about defintitions is breath wasted.
> Do you really mean that? That would mean that either: 1. This group is
> just wasting bandwidth, breath and time. or 2. We should just have fun
> discussing it but never expect it to lead anywhere. Or is there more
> options? Magnus
I don't think we will run out of definition material, but if we could
somehow agree on the SOL interpretation of intellect, then the
discussion could turn to other levels and issues.
PS for Ron:
A post in response to yours on the "Oriental Intellect" is being
prepared.
Bo
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Ron Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote: > Bo: > As Pirsig says (in the PT letter) a line must be drawn
> somewhere > for the social level lest it becomes useless (its
> biological roots > show) as must be done for intellect, and he
> actually draws its line > with the Greek thinkers (in MOQ this means
> SOM), but then he > possibly saw the SOL implication and hastily added
> the cryptic > "Oriental Intellect". > 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/
>
>
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/
