Andre:
In this way, I am still trying to make sense of the seemingly accepted notion here on this discuss that DQ=Reality and anything 'derived' from this Reality ( i.e. SPOV's, SQ, i.e patterned Reality) is somehow 'conceptual' because it has gone through this 'level' we call Intellectual patterns of value. As if some sort of transformation process has taken place at this point and everything turned into something 'intellectual'/ 'conceptual'. Ron: Reflection through memory distorts reality as expereinced. nothing seperate, just a caution of distortion. Andre: Is this level not derived from DQ which 'spawned 'inorganic PoV's, which spawned organic PoV's , which spawned Social PoV's, which spawned Intellectual PoV's? In other words, has this level a different (Quality) parent, begotten by different grand parents, who were begotten by different great grand parents who were begotten by ...what?? And 'language' appears to be playing a large part in this but I can play the same reductionist and inductionist game here as well. It seems to make more sense to do away with this 'concept-making function' assigned to the intellectual process. It makes much more sense (to me) to describe myself as a collection of SPOV's than as a human being. As Pirsig says: We (Man) are those patterns.(Lila p 158). That is, as a collection of SPOV's I am not some independent primary reality of my own. I am very much a part of the collection of patterns called "Man". It is in this sense that I mean that 'Man' or 'human being' is much more 'conceptual' than SPOV's (because 'we' are patternd reality). Rhetoric, (the language used by the Sophists to teach Quality) the child of the myths and poetry of a pre-historic people as a response to the universe around them on the basis of Quality. It is this Quality (and its social vehicle, rhetoric) which is the generator of all we know. And logic/ reason/ rationality came from dialectic and dialectic came from rhetoric. (ZMM p385, my addition). But, did the language used by the Sophists (to teach Quality) change drastically or was it the method through which language was applied that underwent a change as a result of the dialecticians? Ron: Yes, the rules of grammar were created and applied. Creation and use of nouns. Nouns are used in a subject object format to create formal sentences. To establish certainty in universal meaning. Andre: Intellectually, are we dialecticians or rhetoricians or both or something else again (whatever concepts you apply)? Ron: Both but contextually. Andre: This dim time period which slowly but surely gave people the notion that something more could be achieved with this social pattern of value called language. Ron: Universal understanding of particular expereince. Andre: Mmmmm. I wonder what 'ism' I have fallen into? Bodvar: Er.... I may have overlooked some posts in the recent flood. What were the questions? Andre: I am sure you have said it a million times but want to grab your 'intellect' again. What is it? Where is it? What relation does it have to the MoQ's Intellectual level? Are we born with this intellect ( i.e is it hard-wired).[I'll pretend not to have read Platt's reference to this new research report he dragged up the other day]. When talking about this S/O distinction/capability, is this a learnt behaviour? Where is the MoQ in your SOL interpretation? Is it outside of the intellectual 'level'? Is it a code, rather than a metaphysics? (Privately I have entertained the thought that all of this SO(M) is just mental activity, just thinking and talking and reasoning about things, from rocks to flowers to the universe..i.e at the 'social/intellectual' level and that the MoQ is in the box seat at the intellectual level (proper) together with the scientific abstractions and manipulations). But this is rubbish of course!) Are we creating shadows with our language? Is the MoQ the totality of reality (both 'East' and 'West')? Bodvar: Wish I was as nice and polite as you. Andre: I am not sure if this is true but I have been told that it takes a lot less effort to produce a smile on your face than a grouchy or angry one. Apparently it has to do with the number of muscles involved. The other thing is that my life does not depend on the MoQ. I take it seriously but am not fanatical about it. I must admit though that I do admire your patience. You have copped plenty over the years and it must be very, very frustrating to, shall we say; not be understood. And, in all honesty must say that, because you are so full of the MoQ and your interpretation of it, you are sometimes four or five paces ahead of yourself when you try to communicate this through this forum. This shows itself in the grammar and awkward/ absent, punctuation. This makes, trying to follow your reasoning, hard labour in itself and detracts/ distracts from the points you are trying to make. Enough teaching! Nil desperandum illigitimus carborundum! Zai tian he gan bei. Andre 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/
