Krimel. Can't you return to Case?
Thanks for your (at least) impeccable posts
On 7 March you wrote:
...about Taoism and people on this planet, can't see that we
disagree here, but then came this which is the point of departure.
> Intellect is a biological function that evolved in higher primates. It
> is what assures the survival of our species. Social behavior evolves
> even earlier. Even more importantly there are certain aspects of the
> parasympathetic nervous system that evolved in mammals. These include
> elaborations of the structures of the midbrain and the development of
> the vagus nerve which moderates and perpetuates emotional responses.
> These major elaborations in the development of specifically social
> emotions are what bond species members together. You can see that this
> is critical in mammals because it facilitates the growth of mammalian
> offspring who are not mature enough at birth to survive. The parents
> are programmed to be attached to each other and the infant. The vagus
> nerve for example contains high levels of the hormone oxitocin which
> promotes feels of connectedness and compassion.
Correct to the last comma seen from intellect's premises (SOM)
where the term "intellect" means "ability to think", but the (SOL
says that) MOQ says that the 4th level has nothing to do with
thinking per se, but is the value of the
Thinking/what thoughts are about
distinction which is one among countless S/Os f.ex "language/what
language "treats"". The said "ability to think" (i.e. learn from
experience, draw logical conclusions ..etc.) is a biological pattern
emerging with the higher organisms' complex neural system,
brain. AKA "intelligence"
Ironically enough, Pirsig wavers on this point between his own
great insights in ZAMM and LILA's ambiguities, so the MOQ is
divided and weak on the crucial intellectual issue and can't meet
you and other SOMist with full strength. You can refute me and the
other moqists will applaud to the degree they care.
> This seems to be a critical point that you really don't seem capable
> of understanding. The MoQ IS an intellectual pattern. It IS stated in
> words. It IS written down. It IS read. It IS heard. It IS constructed
> of words. It is an INTELECTUAL pattern.
Of course it is an intellectual pattern if any turning of mental
wheels is "intellect". Then laboratory rats are intellectuals.
> Frankly the mind/matter incarnation of this particular duality is a
> much clearer and better statement of the issue than SOM but so be it.
Could be, but as ZAMM describing the emergence of SOM it did
not start the way either, but as the notion of a reality deeper than
the old mythological one. This deeper reality looked back on the
myths as superstition thus the objective-over-subjective attitude
was born. But I agree, mind/matter is more familiar.
> To the extent that SQ/DQ do actually replace mind/matter it is because
> they actually are more fundamental in nature. The mind/matter myth
> leaves the impression that mind could even conceivably exist in the
> absence of matter. This is foolishness. Mind/subjects emerge from
> matter. They cannot and do not exist independently of matter.
Nor can matter exist in the absence of mind, but never mind!!,
intellect is a static level and its S/O will produce paradoxes if
viewed as fundamental, so will all levels.
> This isn't even a metaphysical problem just a mistaken way of seeing
> the world. Static and dynamic on the other hand ARE fundamental
> properties.
Agree.
> Energy takes the form of waves (dynamic) and particles (static).
> Relationships between one thing and another are either consistent or in
> flux. I mention this because in order for anything to happen in any
> universe, under any physics or metaphysics, a distinction has to be
> made. There has to be a fundamental relationship. I would say that the
> MoQ identifies this distinction as being between Static and Dynamic
> Quality.
I don't think Dynamic can be applied to energy but never mind this
too.
> I have not equated objective=static and subjective=dynamic. I don't
> think they do equate and frankly I think almost all of the talk here
> about SOM is nonsense. They are confusing, ill defined terms which
> just provide an excuse for missing the point.
OK, I misunderstood. You see Dynamic/Static as better than S/O.
Good.
> [Krimel]
> Concepts are ideas. They generally involve language as the format we
> use to reproduce them from one person to another. I also tend to think
> of concepts as fitting into a larger framework of other concepts. But
> James is really the authority on this:
OK, then the fundamental split is between the realm of concepts
(in here) and the pre-conceptual world (out there) which is SOM
and a mighty static value. The tragedy is DMB seeing the pre-
concept/concept matching the DQ/SQ ..... and Pirsig that it
creates a Quality/MOQ split.
> "The great difference between precepts and concepts is that percepts
> are continuous and concepts are discrete. Not discrete in their
> _being_, for conception as an act is part of the flux of feeling, but
> discrete from each other in their several meanings. Each concept means
> just what it singly means, and nothing else; and if the conceiver does
> not know whether he means this or means that, it shows that his
> concept is imperfectly formed. The perceptual flux as such on the
> contrary _means_ nothing and is but what it immediately is."
No sarcasm, but you have to create a "For Dummies" regarding
this point.
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/
