On Saturday 08 November 2008 5:28 AM Bo writes to Mati. <snip>
OK, It isn't easy to find our way - language included - in a new metaphysical territory (like America it will be many New ... this and that) but I believe that the "SOM as intellect" tenet is now generally accepted (among the thinkers) and that means that the MOQ is no intellectual pattern and thus saved. DMB will probably repeat "Bo is wrong" till he drops, but that can't be helped. Bo Hi BO and All, I propose a change of analogies for MOQ. Instead of DQ/SQ at the intellectual level I propose Conscious/Mechanical as the analogy. There is a mechanical intellectual level O. There is a conscious intellectual level S Joe On Sunday 09 November 2008 9:22 AM Bo writes to Andre: <snip> But - and this is the point - intellect did not take over at once, but had to use the social level's terminology for centuries. Throughout the Middle Ages it's cause was cloaked in religious terms with Medieval thinkers discussing "the nature" of God ..etc. without knowing that "the nature" is intellect's objectivity in disguise. Now, with the MOQ's arrival - and in spite of being the Q-Context itself and thus neither static nor dynamic - it assumes a level-like relationship with intellect and the same situation occurs. I guess this is what the Menu/Reality and Map/Terrain issues are about. The hitch is that the MOQ can't be subversive and let it's cause ripen inside intellect, lest it will be a reactionary force. > If so, the penny is beginning to drop...don't know where it will > land yet though. OK it's a long drop. Hi Bo, Andre, and all: I want to speculate about the bridge a deity plays in a discussion of the intellectual level. IMO to clarify for myself what you propose, a precise definition of the social level and its relation to the intellectual level is necessary. Words are created for the inorganic level, and the biological level through a conscious appeal to a big bang, a manifestation for the first levels. Evolution at the Social level, the level of Consciousness/self awareness creates words for itself. ³the nature² of God as consciousness is the analogy for the source of these words. I do not accept a deity as a big bang. The social level is more discriminating than unbridled destruction, although nuclear war may prove me wrong when people act like machines. I accept that an analogy is needed to speculate about the consciousness/self-awareness of the intellectual level as there is no way to use the analogy of ³big bang² to clear the playing field. My suggestion would be a Conscious/mechanical metaphysics, an analogy to MOQ to bind value to words. This analogy leaves open the further evolution of consciousness as a limit to God, while still acknowledging the evolution of S/O from the big bang. In this context language itself proposes a limit to evolution of consciousness, without proposing being enslaved to a higher level. E.g. an individual at the social level can restrain an individual at the biological level and anarchy is held at bay. Absolute essence is a misnomer. Evolution of S is personal, beyond intellectual. Joe On 11/8/08 5:28 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello Mati > > On 6 Nov.you wrote: > >> Gav I certainly understand your cynicism and it is well founded. >> Washington has become so static in various social bi-partisanship >> dominated by the Republicans over the past 8 years it is sad. Bush >> has shown such a lack of leadership that the US presidency vacuum of >> any true power and leadership. It is my hope that Obama gets this and >> will do better. I am betting that Obama will be one of the most >> watched and followed president we have had. I hope that he will lead >> with quality. > > Gav is an Australian and they love foul language, remember John > Beasly? > > >> Bo, you wrote: "We ought to at least, but intellect's tentacles are >> tough and even Pirsig wasn't able to free himself from them by his >> insisting that the MOQ is an intellectual pattern. It started as one, >> but then took off on a purpose of its own. ... "Neo intellect ... >> must you?" > >> Mati: My apology but I couldn't resist. I am in agreement that MOQ >> was born from intellect and is not intellet SOM, but it does function >> as a new metaphysical tool that functions in some cases like SOM in >> that it we use it as a philosophical/reflective tool to delineate and >> define reality. To just say MOQ is MOQ and not intellect doesn't >> discribe how it functions (or it own purpose) or gives us a basis to >> understand its difference. Perhaps Neo Intellect isn't perfect but I >> thought it wasn't a bad shot. My father used to love to share the >> Estonian saying "to do better is never forbidden." :-) > > OK, It isn't easy to find our way - language included - in a new > metaphysical territory (like America it will be many New ... this and > that) but I believe that the "SOM as intellect" tenet is now generally > accepted (among the thinkers) and that means that the MOQ is no > intellectual pattern and thus saved. DMB will probably repeat "Bo is > wrong" till he drops, but that can't be helped. > > > 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/ 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/
