Hi Platt On 5 July you wrote:
> If the English symbol "intellectual" means the ability to distinguish > between other and self (objective from subjective) then the symbol > applies to my cat UTOE and all other life forms. I must have expressed myself badly. The term "intellect" means an OBJECTIVE, rational attitude that rejects what's SUBJECTIVE as "mere" figments of mind. The MOQ says this is valuable if merely seen as a static level, but as SOM it spells a valueless universe. > Even if they may not be self-aware, they act as if they know the > difference between self and other. Animals certainly know the self/other distinction, it's the requirement of the biological immune system. > So I don't think that the symbol "intellectual" defines the value of > the MOQ 4th level. Rather, what defines the MOQ 4th level is the VALUE > OF SYMBOL MANIPULATION over the social level's value of conventional > human thoughts, ideas and concepts including the S/O, mind/matter > split. From different perspectives we arrive at the same conclusion -- > the 4th level's value is NOT concepts, ideas or thoughts. But language IS symbol manipulation and mankind of old (social level) both had language and calculated things (another symbol manipulation) so symbols were manipulated galore long before the 4th. level. And in the P.T. letter says that it's no use speaking about intellect before the Greeks (SOM) OK, atl east you see that concepts, ideas or thoughts aren't intellectual patterns and that's the point. > As argued above, I consider the reality/concept split a social value. > It is the basis of conventional thinking and is necessary for > survival. People of old (social level) did not treat language as "mind phenomenon" because they hadn't reached intellect's mind/matter stage. of which "concept/reality" is a subset. On the contrary they regarded language as a powerful means to reach the powers that governed existence. Rituals dominated this reality. WE see remnants of this era in Woodoo pricking dolls with needles that is supposed to bring pain to the bearer of the name. Or burning of symbols (flags, effigies) that the Muslims are so fond of. Those people lack the intellectual attitude. Dreams is another example, these weren't "just" figments of mind, but portents and omens. > What makes up the the intellectual level is symbol manipulation, > represented primarily by mathematics, symbolic logic and computer > "languages" that dominate today's scientific amoral methodology. By > itself, the number 6 is no better or worse than the number 2. That's > the problem of the intellectual level, not the S/O split which serves > human survival needs well. Symbol manipulation in itself isn't what makes up the intellectual level. It's the objective attitude that regards symbols, concepts, VALUES, MORALS and QUALITY as mere mental phenomena and therefore irreal. I had said: > > Finally, the MOQ postulates a DQ/SQ split and says that the dynamic > > part is indefinable. What's wrong with that? Is it "defined" just by > > saying so in words? Platt: > Not sure of your point. "Ineffable" means "indefinable" which means > unable to be put into words (symbols) other than the symbol "DQ." I meant exactly what you said above. The MOQ says that the DQ part is "unable to put in words", and isn't that enough? Why the need for a Quality/MOQ split on top of that? Allegedly meaning that the MOQ is conceptual therefore static, but this is counterproductive. Language is the medium by which the Quality Reality is expressed. Bodvar 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/
