Hi Bo, response inserted below
On 7/23/08, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian.
>
> 22 July you wrote:
>
> > To change just one of Bo's word - given that MoQ levels are a
> > historical picture of static patterns ...
>
> > "And this attitude WAS intellect."
>
> No it's still the intellectual LEVEL's premises.
[IG] OK we agree ... "premises" is a good way to put it. But it still
leaves definitional and practical debate and scope for evolution since
that premise. (We don't need to argue this point any more we came to
"our" agreement on this historical perspective quite some time ago.)
> However, I can't help
> how some perceive the term "intellect". At least the Q-intelletual
> level has come a long way from the first Greek philosophers, but in
> retrospect we see that it has its root here..
[IG] Agreed.
>
> > Scary how many people still talk of science as if we were
> > pre-Schroedinger, Heisenberg et al. As Max Born said way way back
> > "Theoretical physics is actual metaphysics."
>
> > No thougtful scientist "believes" in an objective reality beyond the
> > pragmatic conventions and methods of his day job, like we all do, to
> > avoid stubbing our toes on the philosopher's stone. The problem is not
> > with scientists, but with caricatures that cast their static patterns
> > in stone.
>
> Regardless the various Quantum-based utterings about physics as
> "pragmatic conventions") science goes on. Multi-billion colliders
> are built (CERN) and this would not be done if it wasn't that physic
> is convinced that there is a NATURE independent of cultural
> conventions.
[IG] I'd say the opposite was true. If quantum physics was objectively
cut and dried - there would be no need to make such investments. It's
the serious "non-objective weirdness" that is driving better
understanding of fundamental physics. (Craig & Ron have exchanged on
the point of 20th century physics too.)
>
> But physics is part of intellect - the static level - we are supposed
> to view things from MOQ's meta-level and seen from there
> ".theoretical physics is actual metaphysics". The static intellectual
> level is - or at least was - SOM. This is the Marsha issue. She
> referred to some Eastern wisdom that:
>
> ".. any positive assertion ("it is", or "it is not") made about -
> or view proclaimed of - phenomena must be regarded as
> merely conventional (savti or lokavyavahara).
>
> This (I claim) is identical to young Phaedrus frightening insight that
> sent him on the lateral drift. But what you (all) seem to overlook it
> the further development, namely that P.. postulated that the SOM
> is the static side to existence - what he also called INTELLECT .
>
> In the final MOQ the 4th. level should have been kept the S/O
> distinction (our present Western scientific modern reality) this
> interpretation creates a credible social/intellectual moral code, but
> is prevented by an inability to snap out of SOM (where
> intellect=thinking and all thoughts are intellectual patterns)
>
> When Schrodinger and Heisenberg went to their laboratories they
> donned their S/O frocks, but when they wrote (about their
> discoveries' philosophical implications) they may have been on the
> brink of a Quality-like breakthrough, but that took another century
> ... and is far from established.
[IG] Situation normal Bo ... I said already day to day scientists
operate in the same conventional SOMist world the rest of society does
... convention continues until your "establishment" happens. Even a
well understood paradigm-shifting idea takes three generations to
stick - give or take - or fail to stick, if it's too difficult to
understand. Schroedinger, Heisenberg, and Pirsig (and more) have been
leading the same horse to water for a long time - but the horse isn't
ready to drink - the ideas are seriously weird (compared to
conventional reality). It's not an "inability" to snap out of SOMist
intellectual thinking - just that things that become cast in the stone
of "convention" take a long time to evolve and escape. "Snap" is too
optimistic a view of the timescales involved. Enlightened individuals
can change, but convention is a social level phenomenon, even an
intellectual convention.
As Gav would say, only individuals can in fact decide to change. To
use Marsha's Nagarjuna angle the changes that happen in wider systems
of intellect are "dependent arisings" not simple objective cause and
effects.
Ian
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/
