Hi John 27 Dec. I had said to Ron:
> > The intellectual level springs from the social level John: > What means this "springs"? To stay with the season: Jesus, is THAT now an issue of dissent? > A buncha social apes were sitting around one day, listening to > Socrates and suddenly BOING, out pops an intellectual pattern like a > Jack-in-the-box? Likewise, and I don't feel called on to to start kindergarten lecturing with you again. > That makes as much sense as a buncha carbon springing into the shape > of a chemistry professor. You have got THAT right at least, then maybe you'll be kind enough to read Pirsig's next passage. Bo before: > > 2 and 2 is 4 in social-steeped cultures as it is in > > intellect-steeped dittos, there are even animals that can count so > > logic - AKA intelligence - is used by the biological level too. John: > Arghhh!! Biology doesn't count, society does. Amoebas are > biological, but too stupid to count. Cats however, know how many > kittens they've got, as I can, and have, demonstrated empirically when > I give one of my cat's kittens away and she (the cat's mother) goes > around mewing for days looking for the lost. OK, I tried to say that INTELLIGENCE occurred with biological neural complexity AKA "brain". So plants, single cell- and multi-celled organisms up to a certain point were/still are as dumb as you are ;-) > There are stories even of horses doing simple addition for a show, but > what they are really counting on is the satisfied relief in their > owners face when they get to the right number. Maybe not, but some animals "think" and that means applying logic including 2+2=4, they do not think by way of language "Let's see .. hmmm, hmmm... etc" but they for sure manipulate former experience in the form of images, smell, and/or other sense impressions. And ... flex whatever intelligence you have ... it is this "intelligence = intellect" fallacy that have been this discussion's hang up for a decade. It seems impossible to snap out of the 4th. level as thinking or logic. > Your problem Bo, is you can't see when to stop. You seem to be > searching for your master's satisfaction, with no results as yet. So > you keep pawing the turf. I magnanimously overlook this. ;-) > In the MoQ, logic is a tool, value is the center. In SOM, value is a > tool and logic is the center. In the MOQ everything is static value patterns FYI, and as said intelligence is a mercenary that serves all static levels. SOM (or intellect) its latest employer why you all seem bent on intelligence as intellect, You inadvertently put the finger on the sore spot. Thanks. Bo before: > > Language and logic are intelligence's tools, but intelligence can serve > > any master. Social level people found (still find) it perfectly logical > > that existence is created by god(s) while intellect-based people find it > > logical that it is a coincidence John: > I'd say that's a pretty confusing mishmash of conceptualization there, > but we're already past it so why bother trying to analyze confusion > built upon error? Keep it Simple, should be the metaphysical dictum at > the forefront of all our frontal lobes. Just memorize the following > and you'll see a satisfied look on your trainers face: A metaphysics of > Quality is a value centered metaphysics not logic centered. By jettisoning logic the MOQ may recruit a few lesser minds (they are already assembled :) but that will certainly destroy it. Why - I wonder - do you see the SOL interpretation as complicating? I clears away tons of misunderstanding and confusion. But as the film bad-guy said after being robbed of his newly-mixed plague: "Please let me have my illness back"! Who wants clarity? 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/
