Hi Bo,
On 8 Jul 2009 at 9:02, [email protected] wrote:
:
{Platt]
> > 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.
[Bo]
> 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.
Instead of intellect being an "attitude" perhaps "assumption" would be a
more precise word, or even "axiom" as in: "It's an axiom of rational
intellect that what's subjective are mere figments of mind whereas
objects are tangible, measurable and therefore real."
Would that be an accurate description of your view?
[Platt]
> > Even if they may not be self-aware, they act as if they know the
> > difference between self and other.
[Bo]
> Animals certainly know the self/other distinction, it's the requirement
> of the biological immune system.
Agree.
[Platt]
> > 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.
[Bo]
> 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.
Yes, but did the ancients before the Greeks think symbol manipulation
was interesting enough to be prompted to look at and study it as a
separate phenomenon? I doubt it.
[Bo]
> 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.
OK
[Platt]
> > As argued above, I consider the reality/concept split a social value.
> > It is the basis of conventional thinking and is necessary for
> > survival.
[Bo}
> 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.
Nor did they treat language as symbol manipulation.
[Bo]
> 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.
Certainly they used symbols (language, flags, effigies, etc.) but did they
think of them as symbols? I don't think so. That came with with rise of
the intellectual level, i.e., "thinking about thinking.". .
[Platt]
> > 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.
[Bo]
> 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."
[Bo]
> 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.
Agree. The symbols that make up the written MOQ are part of but not
the whole Quality Reality expressed because the reality expressed
includes experience that cannot be symbolized. But, we know it anyway.
.
In summary, you see the intellectual level as dominated by a worldview
that places more importance on solid matter than spinning mind, leaving
values up for grabs. I see the intellectual level as dominated by meta-
symbol manipulation of symbol manipulation, also leaving values up for
grabs. The MOQ presents a worldview of reality as a moral order,
putting values smack at the center but with an ineffable quality that is
beyond subject/object, mind/matter, symbol/metasymbol and all other
"intellectual" machinations.
But, I could be wrong.
Platt
.
But, I could be wrong.
Platt
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/
