Hi Joe 30 Dec.
I had written: > "Symbolizes" ...? 2+2=4 written this way may look "intellectual" but > dots or dashes, or pebbles is symbols all right and apes can do the > latter (I'm told) and if so the intellectual level is moved down into > the biological realm. Logic ITSELF in the sense of number > relationships, geometrical & mathematical ditto is only intellectual > the moment it is used the Pythagorean way namely to prove how a > relationship it is objectively and unswervingly so. <snip> Joe replies: > For logic to find its roots, I feel you have to abandon the Social > level of evolution and replace it with an Emotional level of evolution > which becomes the first level in conscious evolution. A social level > is fairly meaningless without the logic of the intellectual level, and > it is difficult to find the dynamic of the social level to be different > from the dynamic of an anthill. Please no new levels!!! (the MOQ is no level to forestall comments) I've never placed logic ITSELF at the social level. The point is that Pirsig declared it an intellectual (nonS/O pattern) but if applying logic (in the calculating sense) is "intellect" then the intellectual level began deep down in the biological realm. Joe, please try to be a little reasonable and stop your silly roamings. > ³They don¹t think, they feel!² is not an indictment of emotional > behavior. Of course feeling does not exclude "thinking" (in the intelligence sense, goddammit, this is the the somish influence that hinders an understanding of the MOQ) but EMOTIONS excludes REASON!!!! > Rather it is an important pointer to a logic in conscious > behavior based in evolution to emotions rather than behavior based on > a random occurrence. ????????????? At least EMOTION (feeling) is the social level's "expression" and this level is the base of the intellectual level's REASON. > The intellectual logic of 1+1=2 follows the emotional conscious > perception of an individuated difference male/female formulated in a > number relationship rather than mere individuation. It is not good for > man to be alone. 1+1=2 is not intellectual in ITSELF, but only with the intellectual level (Greeks) did people start to wonder about such logical contexts. WHY is 1+1=2? The social level people - the Babylonians and Egyptians and all ancient people - just applied logic by way of intelligence. Then the million Euro question is: What is MOQ's attitude regarding logic ITSELF? And please cut that equally silly "consciousness" talk, there is no such thing in the MOQ only the respective levels' VALUE AWARENESS! Happy New Year! Bodvar > Joe > > > "Symbolizes" ...? 2+2=4 written this way may look "intellectual" > > but dots or dashes, or pebbles is symbols all right and apes can do > > the latter (I'm told) and if so the intellectual level is moved down > > into the biological realm. Logic ITSELF in the sense of number > > relationships, geometrical & mathematical ditto is only intellectual > > the moment it is used the Pythagorean way namely to prove how a > > relationship it is objectively and unswervingly so. > > > 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/
