Ron:
> There is a reason.
> Logicians Main article: School of Names The logicians (School of
Names)
> were concerned with logic, paradoxes, names and actuality (similar to
> Confucian rectification of names). The logician Hui Shi was a friendly
> rival to Zhuangzi, arguing against Taoism in a light-hearted and
> humorous manner. Another logician, Gongsun Long, told the famous When
a
> White Horse is Not a Horse dialogue. This school did not thrive
because
> the Chinese regarded sophistry and dialectic as impractical.
Bo:
I wish you would make your point not just launch these quotes. Is
"when a white horse is not a horse" an example of Oriental
intellect?
Ron launches another quote:
When Derk Bodde translated Feng Youlan's history of Chinese philosophy
(1952), he noted the difficulties of construing the White Horse paradox
in English.
Strictly speaking, names or terms are divided into those that are
abstract and those that are concrete. The abstract term denotes the
universal, the concrete term the particular. The particular is the
denotation, and the universal the connotation, of the term. In western
inflected languages there is no difficulty in distinguishing between the
particular ('white' or 'horse') and the abstract ('whiteness' or
'horseness'). In Chinese, however, owing to the fact that the written
characters are ideographic and pictorial and lack all inflection, there
is no possible way, as far as the form of individual words is concerned,
of distinguishing between abstract and concrete terms. Thus in Chinese
the word designating a particular horse and that designating the
universal, 'horseness,' are written and pronounced in the same way.
Similarly with other terms, so that such words as 'horse' and 'white',
being used to designate both the concrete particular and the abstract
universal, thus hold two values. (1952:206)
Bo:
Sarcasm aside, yes the Chinese may not have dwelt on
"objecivism" long enough to make it a metaphysics in the same
way the Greeks did, hence they (the Orientals) did not develop a
science. Admittedly they invented things, but it never took off into
a technological culture.
Ron:
My point is that the Chinese did not develop formal objectivism
Because their language did not allow them to define in those terms
. Thus this type of logic was not valued.
Bo:
However, it was India Pirsig had in mind
when speaking about the Veda and Upanishads, but I guess the
same goes for the Indians, they had a flirt with objectivity, but
then went on to a Quality-like phase (what we know as ZEN, and
why this attracts some) and did not develop science and
technology.
Ron:
There are two more examples of patterns of intellectual thinking
That are non-S/O.
Bo:
An aside: You may note my new use of "objectivism" but I
believe this is better to make you understand that the S/O
primarily means objectivity with subjectivity only its "stooge man"
at first, but later the said man challenged its employee and only
then we may speak of a S/O metaphysics.
I see no holes in the SOL, but you - Ron - obviously fail to
understand the "intellect before and after the MOQ" point. The
4th. level is the value of the S/O distinction while SOM's
"intellect" is merely thinking. And your seemingly go on as if any
kind of thinking is the 4th. level.
Ron:
I understand your point very well. My reasoning is that any kind
Of thinking IS the 4th level, BUT, (this is where SOL comes in)
This concept means nothing to our dilemma, as you say, it does not
Lend any traction in understanding to us. If we directly apply
The four levels to western thought and assume the invention
Of Greek methods of attaining certainty or "truth" as the origin
Of the intellectual level, then the levels work for us as
A powerful explanatory tool.
Bo:
Are there non-SOMish dialectics?
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 (ZAMM).
ZAMM describes dialectics as "the Church of Reason", as SOM
itself.
Ron:
"The aim of the dialectical method, often known as dialectic or
dialectics, is to try to resolve the disagreement through rational
discussion, and ultimately, the search for truth. One way to proceed -
the Socratic method - is to show that a given hypothesis (with other
admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of
the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see also reductio ad absurdum).
Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some
presupposition of both the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby
moving to a third (syn)thesis or "sublation". However, the rejection of
the participant's presuppositions can be resisted, which might generate
a second order controversy."
These are only two methods of attaining certainty within a linguistic
context.
Variants of dialectics
.1 Hindu dialectic
.2 Socratic dialectic
.3 Buddhist dialectic
.4 Hegelian dialectic
.5 Marxist dialectics
What I see Bo, is that SOM is one method of attaining certainty or
truth, it's defined by it's assumptions, that of objectivity.
The intellectual level is defined by the human beings drive for
Understanding the phenomenal world, truth finding may be preformed
And understood in a variety of different ways. The test always is
Its compatibility with observable phenomena. What then differentiates
Is complexity and accuracy. Because SOM is both accurate and complex
Does not garner the assumption that it is the ONLY way of ascertaining
Truth.. truth is relative and contextual and is arrived at in many ways
Including Mythological and religious.
Ron prev:
> Bo, I really see no reason for you to hold to the notion
> That SOM IS the intellectual level. SOL works just as well
> Accepting that SOM is one of many possible intellectual patterns. It
> Solves all your problems without creating any new ones. I really do
> not understand your reservation toward this, It resolves everything
> and allows SOL to function within The SOM pattern giving MoQ the
> explanatory power you Posit. -Ron
Bo:
Again, the 4th level is the S/O distinction in its old "objectivity"
role (its metaphysical rank taken over by the MOQ) yet there
can't be an intellectual pattern without the S/O distinction in some
or other form.
Ron:
Then how is it possible for MoQ to change or replace
SOM if it is the level itself? It defies it's own reasoning.
It would then require that MoQ be a fifth level splitting
Intellectual into two, creating needless complexity all the while
Losing explanatory ground at the evolutionary scale. You run
into a dead end and get torn to shreds academically.
Bo:
Please point to one or more non-S/O intellectual
patterns. Also tell me how you see the SOL "working just as well"
there may be nuances to your logic I haven't received. No
sarcasm.
Ron:
Per the explanation I provided above, non-S/O intellectual
Patterns would be any method of ascertaining the true or
The Explanation of the observable in a non-western, dialectically
Socratic Way.
I feel by taking this tack you hedge all your bets without
Losing an ounce of your SOL interpretation for your SOL
Applies directly to the western method of thinking and
Understanding and for all intent and purpose SOM DOES
Represent the intellectual level as applied to our
Understanding. Assuming it as the fourth level
Holds as much power as assuming zero in mathematics.
AND
By taking this tack you dispel the need for another level
and avoid any condemnation of destroying the quality principle
because you are leaving the pre-intellectual individual
experience intact as an MoQ primacy.( the Q-level that
may not be defined).
CONCLUSIVLY
It defines the Q-level (IPV) as self aware. For the first time
In the west, a metaphysics is aware of itself as a metaphysics,
As a method of understanding Phenomenal experience not phenomenal
Experience itself. THIS is the big MOQ breakthrough in my opinion
By clinging onto SOM as the intellectual level exclusively
combines SOM Assumption with MOQ logic which confuses the issue
by conflict of meaning which either paralyzes MOQ by trapping
it in individual pre-intellectual experience
OR
Make the same fallacy of taking an understanding of reality
As human perceptual reality itself and begin looking for meta-levels for
Accounting for Methods of MOQ explanation and interpretation.
THEN
The MOQer may utilize IPV in a radical way to ascertain and develop
An Independent method of truth ascertation in the Pragmatic sense
Of radical empiricism involving IPV checked against pre-intellectual
experience. This Q-level of intellectual awareness is free to use
what ever means to develop an individual value awareness based on
usefulness
rather than rely on social dogma unwittingly and in our own case, take
it
as objective truth.
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/
