Hi Dave T.
16 Feb.
Bo before
> > Human reason sounds like "intelligence", my contention is that the
> > INTELLECTUAL LEVEL is the S/O split, nothing about human or
> > intelligence please.
> In the first statement you say "AKA Reason" yet when I use the term
> "human reason" you then object 'reason' is "nothing about human." What
> the????? If you suggested that "reason" has nothing to do with humans,
> what next, humans don't exist?
Remember my "expression" list: interaction-sensation-emotion-reason
where the intellectual level's innumerable facets are compressed into
"reason" ('rationality' would be better, but did not rhyme) Thus "reason
simply means the 4th. level, but this level is not primarily human, to
insisting on its human aspect is like insisting on the biological level's
carbon aspect. Admittedly, carbon is life's building block, but not its
value, likewise the human society is intellect's building block, but not
its value. Remember from LILA about "...Lila does not have value,
value has Lila".
> I could buy: Intellect [invented] the subject/object distinction.
That's putting the cart before the horse. It was no pre-existing
"intellect" that invented the S/O distinction rather the Greek society
having reached a stage when a "leisure class" could spend their days
thinking i.e. let their intelligence roam outside the immediate needs,
this lead to questions about some reality beyond the traditional
mythological fundament, about an eternal, imperishable (objective)
reality independent of (subjective) opinion. And the rest is history, from
these first vague S/O shapes arose the new value level which would
transform everything .... for the culture that formed from this new
reality (the Orient I leave out here)
> If you could, we're half way there. Then roll back the time of
> intellect's emergence to about the time homo sapiens emerged and you
> got it......
I wish I could, but that would leave the MOQ in shambles.
> See how close you are! Just as social behaviors preceded the emergence
> of the social level, the intellect's behaviors had to precede the
> emergence of the intellectual level.
If you mean the MOQ tenet about ". ...in its parent's service" it seems
to apply to the social level, but regarding biology, did life in some
meaningful sense exist prior to or the 2nd. level or help inorganic
value? I have problems with the "serving" part. The exact moment of a
level's birth - i.e. when it started to have some clout may be arbitrary,
there surely were thinkers before the known names, but their
philosophing never "served" tradition.
You see that I am on to a social definition different from wolf-packs
and ape colonies, more like the true one that Pirsig indicated and what
he saw Magnus undermining with his absurd "societies". Social value
is not anything that "helps" biology rather tries to suppresss its "dog
eat dog" value. Your absurd intellect is a copy of Magnus social ditto..
> Yesterday I reread the review by Strawson to check the philosopher he
> suggested RMP's work resembled. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. This
> time around and particularly in view of where this thread started that
> claim is much more understandable. Some commonality in their thinking
> based on snips from:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel
As said I have a letter from Pirsig where he points to Hegel as just a
superficial likeness. And Strawson? When did he become a MOQ
expert?
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/
