O'hoi Platt 22 Feb. u wrote:
> Just so I'm clear about your argument are you saying that computer > languages and higher mathematics rightfully belong at the social level > because they are merely extensions of language and calculation that > began long before S/O dualism that marks Pirsig's intellectual emerged > on scene? I tried to say - in my peculiar "shorthand" writing style - that the term mathematics , algebra, geometry ... are names that the intellectual level put on various means of calculation, "math" using numbers as symbols, "algebra" using letters, "geometry" using figures, but pebbles, lines in sand, beads on an abacus .. etc are symbols all right, so calculating itself is infinitely older than the 4th. level. It has its origin at the same level as the ability to think, namely biology, but the term "thinking" as a subjective activity contrasted to the objects for thinking is intellect's S/O, however, no static level knows the level context, they believe everything is their own legitimate property, hence Intellect's claim on "thinking" and its results like calculation in all forms, including "higher mathematics" . > The only problem remaining for me in your theory is the need to posit > a meta-level for the MOQ which seems to replace Pirsig's suggestion of > a higher level of art. I understand your (and Pirsig's) "container" > argument, but still something just doesn't seem to fit right when it > comes to a meta-level reality. I'll work on it. Maybe my idea of > beauty being both immanent and transcendent can supply the missing > link. At this point we are at the limits. Pirsig does not really suggest a level but "a code of art" beyond intellect which means something that wants to "debunk" intellect and that must necessarily be the MOQ, the Quality Reality. 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/
