Hi Mati, Thanks for the response ...
I'm OK with MoQ as a 5th level, said that before if, we want to think of "existing / historical" intellect as SOMism. We got there several years ago, and I agree with you that we seem unable (In an unmoderated e-mail forum, to break away from SOMist discourse .... part of what I've been calling Catch-22 .... language and dialectic are full of SOMist presumptions .... which is why Dan goes it alone ?) You said "The "axes" are interesting but I respectfully think they are so oversimplified that they lack any power of understanding. For example you put intellectual with freedom, yet "freedom" itself means nothing without "responsibility" ..... etc. " Well yes, obviously - they are just the "axes" .... I was just "naming" them in one (or two) words ... not every subject along them .... freedom comes with responsibilities and constraints and many more patterns of value across the Intellect / Social levels. (the individual / collective angle supplies the distinction between responsibilties (from inside, the individual) and constratints (from outside the collective / social). If you want a comprehensive thesis, I'd need to write one, but I was just answering your question - and you, like the rest of us fall into the SOMist trap - when I say one thing, you accuse me of being wrong because of something I didn't mention. (Anyway - my thesis is there is no comprehensive and consistent thesis expressable in logical language - which is why Pirsig used rhetoric.) BTW - I think you meant tenets, not tenants. Regards Ian On 7/16/08, Mati Palm-Leis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ian, > > Ian: [IG] I've agreed with Bo before that the emergence of the S/O divide > is OK as the historical point at which the intellectual level emerged.If > that is all we want from MoQ - history - then I'd have no argument.I just > think it is plainly evident that the content of the intellectual level is > not "defined" by SOMism now and for all time ... > > MoQ is an evolutionary model, with a future. Either the intellectual > includes that future or we predict further levels above the SoMist level. > There is more than SoMism, no ?. > > > > Mati: To answer your question "SOMism is the basis for all intellect" the > answer is yes and here is another point to consider. Look at any current > research methodology book in any field at any university in the world. What > you will find is that they all base they understanding of truth back to the > fundamental of S/O divide. Over the past 2500 years if intellect had > evolved into something different then the perhaps Pirsig would have had a > better research model to study the Indians which was the original motivation > for LILA to begin with. We are sometimes under the assumption that intellect > and knowledge are synonymous and if the world of knowledge has evolved with > such diversity over the past 200 hundred years then intellect can't be the > same. No they are not synonymous, but the power of intellect has given us > some tremendous milage, yet as RMP show us so clearly SOM has its > limitations as well. If there is another point or form of intellect that > Phaedrus could bit into I am sure he would have and if there was another > form intellect for studying his Indians he would have, but there was > understanding the pursuit of all truth in the western world is tethered to a > single ox with two horns. :-) I would strongly guess that today in the > Eastern culture any current pursuit of research knowledge today is tethered > to the same ox. > > > > For a long time I thought Bodvar was nuts to say that MOQ is the 5th level. > Yet it seems to fit all the tenants that RMP has purposed about each of the > levels and how they work. What seems clear is that MOQ has not yet broken > away from its parent intellect (SOM) in part I believe that we haven't truly > understood intellect and its relation to MOQ, but that is a completely > different bone to pick. > > > > Ian: [IG] I think the main "axes" that define the difference are social > (constraint) vs intellectual (freedom), and social (collective) vs > intellectual (individual). > > I've said this a million times. But exactly how ? Apart from the directions > / dimensions of these axes, I've never yet come to any firm demarcation > lines, so I simply treat these as many possible patterns within one > "cultural (socio-intellectual) level" (for now). > > > > Mati: The "axes" are interesting but I respectfully think they are so > oversimplified that they lack any power of understanding. For example you > put intellectual with freedom, yet "freedom" itself means nothing without > "responsibility". This is a something I have to explain to teenagers all > the time who ideally adhere to "freedom" as a reality of truth without > consideration to what its corollary, "responsibility". Philosophically > speaking I think we are trying to capture both the static and dynamic > definitions of intellect with the idea of "Freedom" & "creativity" but if > RMP is correct and the dynamic reality is not definable then let's stick to > the static reality of intellect. Next. > > > > Ian: [IG] Precisely. This symbolic manipulation / semantic-lingustic > communication is shared by both levels (another reason I resist using this > as the definitive demarcation too). I think you identify a good angle - the > way language is used, rather than language per-se. (Clearly SoMist language > - invented at the emergence of the intellectual - infected and spread to > social level patterns too.) I think the real difference is what the levels > "seek to do" with language - about intent, purpose, telos. Social tends to > control / conserve, Intellectual tends to freedom / creation. I've often > formed the interim conclusion that this is the best distinction we have. > > > > Mati: I generally agree with what you are saying however there are some > points that I could nit pick but I will spare you. :-) > > > > Ian: [IG] That is the $64,000 question. How do social constraints (best) > live in balanced harmony with intellectual freedoms ? My answer has been > evolving for 7 years so far. My latest thinking involves a telos - a > traditonal mythology - that sets future "direction" for "our culture's" > evolution. Scary thought. Whatever, I'm convinced there is (by definition) > no entirely intellectual (SOMist, trad-rationalist or otherwise) answer to > that question. Think about it. (clue - Nietzsche / Godel / Wittgenstein / > Hofstader and more.) > > > > Mati: Interesting approach worth further contemplation. Here is something > to think about, where in the world do we find the greatest sense of harmony > of the social and intellectual levels and what part of the world is the > greatest discourse? My answer might be, Best (Scandinavian Countries) Worst > (Iraq). Think about it. > > > > Sincerely, > > Mati > > > > > > > > > > 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/
