Hi to you Magnus
17 Sep. you wrote:
Our dispute boils down to the intellectual issue ... again!
Bo before:
> > Then, by the same token, intellect is the force that keeps people
> > "thinking" when there's no other explanations such as inorganic,
> > biological or social.
Magnus:
> Not quite. You seem to think that a thought about a smell is biological
> value, but it's not. It's still a thought and therefore intellectual value
When a dog sniffs something there is a recognition of this particular
experience, but it's not "thinking" in the (silent) language sense - this
we agree on? When we humans do the same we will at times add a
name to the experience - out loud or to ourselves, but this isn't
intellect, stone age people surely had language and names for
different smells. Intellect is the ability to distinguish between the
subjective experience and the objective explanation of it. Something
the 2nd. and 3rd. level lack.
> > Regarding intellect the notion of the MOQ as an intellectual pattern
> > makes everything "intellectual".
> No. And I have no idea why you keep persisting this. The MoQ is not
> reality, it's merely a *model* of reality. I think it's connected to
> your refusal to differentiate between gravity and the law of gravity,
> but I can't really put my finger on it. At least to not so you
> understand what I mean.
Intellect (the level) IS the distinction between the (in this case)
observed data of things falling to the ground and the explanation why
they do, while you claim that "thinking" is intellect (the mind that
observes and give names to the observations). Pirsig of LILA also fell
prey to intellect's lure and insists that the MOQ is just another
subjective explanation of objective Quality, while ZAMM's Phaedrus
saw through intellect's veil demonstrated by the Newton example:
Intellect arrived with the Greeks and crystallized the present, the future
and the PAST in its subject/object matrix.
> > DQ itself is "intellectual", the static
> > levels are "intellectual". Craig protested and called this confusing
> > the menu and food, but after my Newton example he clammed shut.
> Craig's right, you're wrong.
Is ZAMM's Newton example wrong?
> > The SOL interpretation is now vouched for by Pirsig (as far as he
> > could possibly go)
> I must have missed that, what did he say about it?
There has been a tendency to extend the meaning of "social"
down into the biological with the assertion that, for example,
ants are social, but I have argued that this extends the
meaning to a point where it is useless for classification. I said
that even atoms can be called societies of electrons and
protons. And since everything is thus social, why even have
the word? I think the same happens to the term, "intellectual,"
when one extends it much before the Ancient Greeks.*
The same (=usless for classification) happens to an intellectual level
before the Greeks. It means that the SOL interpretation is vouched for
by Pirsig.
> > but people don't admit anything, it's a fate worse than
> > death. The biological component of your "social" is the 3rd. level
> > in its parent's service, and I would advice you to accept that, as
> > well as dropping the the inorganic part.
> I'm afraid I didn't understand what you mean by that last part. But I
> will probably not accept it. And why would I drop the inorganic part?
> Do you mean we should remove the inorganic level?
You said that "social" is what's left when there are no INORGANIC and
biological explanations. The biological part can be ascribed to the 3rd.
level in its parent's service, but the inorganic values as social is
untenable.
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/
