Hello Mel (DMB, Horse, Andrè, Ron. Platt, Ham ... even if excommunicated)
10 Nov. > > Bo originally: > > > Bodvar said:...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. > DMB > > dmb says:Consider it repeated. > > There are many thinkers that make a case against SOM and of course > > they use intellect to make that case. I think this should be obviousot > > because the MOQ is our prime example of such a non-SOM intellectual > > description. Mel: > Maybe your confusion is caused by a failure to distinguish between the > capacity to think with the product of that capacity. It's like the > difference between the skill of a carpenter and one of his products, > between the ability to cook and the meal that's been prepared. The > ability to manipulate abstractions is different than any particular > configuration of of abstractions. Thanks Mel, finally one who sees through the 4th. level's trick of presenting the term "intellect" as thinking itself. I am equally disappointed by Andrè who so easily let himself be duped by DMB, and DMB who - since he let himself be seduced by Paul Turner - has his mind jammed. Again, Mel is right, the 4th. level used the "capacity to think" (AKA intelligence - that has its Q-origin in biology) to make the act of thinking (manipulating symbols) into it's own value. I.e. those who did not think objectively were insane. Hence Phaedrus first attempt to think Dynamic/Static Quality that ended in a mental hospital. The only remark to Mel's is "manipulating abstractions". When Social Level people "thought" they did not manipulate abstractions, S/Os like "abstract/concrete" did not exist at the 3rd. level *) it's intellect looking down on the lower levels. Not to speak of animals non-verbal manipulations of symbols, but it's the very same neurological process. I will not harp more om Mels splendid observation any more just rejoice that there is one who sees the SOL point. Maybe Ron also, I will study his last some more. DMB can go to the corner and join Horse ;-). *) I speak in past tense about the time when society was leading edge, but it is part of our present constitution, yet when in its emotional reality we are oblivious to it being manipulation of anything. Why emotions are so seductive, so GOOD. Bo > That's how we can think of metaphysical systems as paintings in a > gallery. The same basic skill set can produce any number of pictures. > The notion that there can only be one true picture of reality is one > of the central problems with SOM. > > Unlike the MOQ, scientific objectivity allows only one construction of > things. This is also a feature of all forms of essentialism. I mean, > your insistence that intellect equals SOM is probably, and ironically, > a stubborn vestige of the SOM picture of reality. > > Personally, I don't like the consequences of that equation either. It > denigrates the intellect and more or less denies it the capacity to > change or evolve or to paint new pictures. Pirsig is saying that > intellect is the most dynamic level and that's what makes it the most > moral level but your equation turns the intellectual level into the > MOQ's own worst enemy. Time to go to work. > > > mel: > This is an interesting exchange, above. > > It is a trap, a cage, and the question is; who is on > the inside looking out and who is outside looking in? > > It highlights something that 'peeks through the curtain': > perception in sets and systems. I think part of the trap > is in language and the habit of language and the schooling > in which we were brought up. All three are creatures of the > social level, relatively dynamic for the social, but far less so > than the functions of intellect that they support . > > Another part of the trap is recursive and concentric. > > Whenever we peceive a system, we see from one 'ring' meta > to the system we perceive. The extent to which we understand > the perceived system is the extent to which we are fluent in > the meta system. > > While it has been put forth that SOM is only one possible tool > in the intellectual level. It seems to be a failed analogy to some. > Maybe a better way to look at SOM is as a system within the intellect. > It has as its best function the reductionist, the granular, the > take-it-apart-and-look-under-the-hood/bonnet approach. > > SOM divided the sky into day and night, earth and sky, the > dry land and water and pairs all the way down to the quantum > level where we can do little more than play whack-a-mole with > the fizzy bits and wonder where the went. Hard to argue with > success, but that's only part of the story. > > It is in coming back the other way, from the simple to the > complex in the synthetic, the manufactured, the creative, > that we begin to see things 'peek through the curtain' and > SOM loses it's luster. > > SOM is a largely deductive function only partly above "water line" of > the 'social ocean' and apt to be reclaimed at high tide or flood > surge. SOM deals with all the parts and pieces... > > When we begin to buld upward we begin to see from a different > place in intellect. We begin to deal not with the pieces, but with > the relationships between the pieces. We begin to discover what is > emergent and beyond the simply predictable. We move beyond the > Subject or Object to the organizational and creative. We move from the > intellectually Static to the Dynamic. We create whole new tools. > > I briefly mentioned the distinction earlier of different orders of > infinity, which I think (per Stuart Kauffman's writings), a perfect > analogy to steal. SOM is like a first order infinity in how it deals > with the world...it will get you close. Like knowing all the > integers in the the infinite number line will allow you to always be > able to bracket anything between two integers. No matter how big or > small a number you can know what it is between--that's a pretty close > understanding of the universe. > > But compare that line of infinite integers to the real numbers and you > see that the 'density' of numbers is different. > > I hope this makes sense as a direction to explore. > > thanks-mel > > > p.s. or then again...my SOM television is Black and White and I can > see all the shows you can see. You can watch Bogart movies and the > Marx Brothers on your television. Therefore all televisions are black > and white... > > (Yes, I know the logical fallacy, but it feels like this argument of > SOM/MOQ) > > > > > > > > > > > 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/
