OK, Bo, in your own time, I'm not going anywhere ;-) You said "I don't think you - Ian - can juggle with logic this way and get away with ..." So why will you not therefore pick-up on where I address your "logical" concerns, because I really am addressing those and those alone ...
If my "simple" stuff looks trivial or crass drivel and my complex stuff looks "unintelligible" drivel, give me a clue as to where to take the logical argument. (Don't however repeat the history of how SOMist intellect evolved from the Greeks, and how MoQ fixes the problem ... I geddit already ... Ron, DMB and plenty of others have published their MOQish theses on this topic.) Don't evade the logical concern, I am addressing that (and that only for now). Where you say ""...the 4th level is a MOQ subset, thus the MOQ can't be an intellectual subset ..." This is your statement of the logical problem ... that always leads us to the finger / moon, menu / meal reality / represented bind, the logical bind I am trying to break for us. Go back to your 2+2=4 quip about logic, and my simplest response to that. Ian On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 8:00 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Ian. > > 9 Dec you wrote > > I had said >> > "I understand [intellect] as THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT/OBJECT >> > DISTINCTION" > > Ian >> I also understand that as the distinguishing feature of intellect when >> it emerged emerged (historically), but it didn't stop evolving there. > > Of course intellect has evolved, immensely so, but it was some basic > "formula" - like the biological evolution beginning with some > reproduction formula whose first form were bacteria and such, yet > ended with the immense complex mammal organism. > > And intellects basic formula is - as described n ZAMM - the S/O, > beginning as the first gropings for something beyond the social level's > god-reality that soon found its well-known pattern > > Parmenides made it clear for the first time that the Immortal > Principle, the One, Truth, God, is separate from appearance > and from opinion, and the importance of this separation and its > effect upon subsequent history cannot be overstated. (ZAMM > Corgi Paperback p. 366) > > The first major stage was the Truth/Appearance dichotomy and then > through countless stages reached its "final form" with the mind/matter > form and it's many off-shoots. > > Bo also said >> > "the 4th level is a MOQ subset, thus the MOQ can't be an intellectual >> > subset, that's for sure." > >> Logically true with your definition Bo, and equally logically, not >> necessarily true with mine. You are simply taking a very static >> (SOMist) view of the various MoQ items we are talking about including >> MoQish intellect, which in fact does not exist in your interpretation. > > I don't think you - Ian - can juggle with logic this way and get away with > calling it "static". The container logic were used by Pirsig to > demonstrate that the Quality Reality can't be contained by the > Subject/Object Reality and my "...the 4th level is a MOQ subset, thus > the MOQ can't be an intellectual subset" .. is a variant of that > argument. > > 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/
