Nice one Dave, thanks for digging up the references. My same answer was kinda in my question "IF we limit ..." ie we really shouldn't "limit" - we should see the evolutionary dynamic value of allowing the Intellectual level to be more than SOM. (even though it appears simple and convenient to think of it as SOM)
I was hoping Mary (and Bo) might see this point ? Ian On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:03 AM, david buchanan <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ian said to Mary: > I actually agree with this [the MoQ has much greater explanatory power when > the Intellectual Level is viewed as SOM than when it is not I actually agree > with this] so I ask you a question. If we limit the intellectual level to > this kind of intellect ... where in the evolutionary levels of the MoQ does > your Eastern Mystic view fit? > > > > dmb says: > > In the MOQ's hierarchy of levels the thing that puts intellect at the top and > the reason it's considered the most moral level is not just because it is > more evolved but also more dynamic. It is the most open to change and growth > and evolution. If we limit the intellect to one particular metaphysical > framework, we've arbitrarily arrested its development. I think its more like > a phase in the historical development of philosophy and culture. That's how > James describes it, as a persistent problem through the history of philosophy > since Descartes, at least. > > Above the social-intellectual code, there is the intellectual-dynamic code. > This code of art is about the immorality of suppressing intellectual > creativity, of being too static with respect to science, philosophy or any > other intellectual activity. (Lila, last two pages of chapter 29) The > formation of a new scientific hypothesis is, in this sense, an act of > artistic creation. And so is a new metaphysics. Again, this morality is not > just about what is most evolved but also what's most dynamic (because that > further serves the ongoing process of evolution). > > And it really does seem that there has been a shift in consciousness in the > last century or so. You know, across the whole of Western culture, not just > in philosophy. But this shift certainly show up in philosophy too. Even in > the material sense, we live in a world that's very different from our > ancestors' world. Constant change has become the norm. Seems like everything > is in motion all the time, not least of all because there are nearly 7 > billion of us now. (We should pick a time and all take a world-wide-nap.) And > so this shows up in process oriented philosophies, dynamic philosophies about > streams and fluxes and evolutionary moralities. Pirsig and James aren't the > only ones who've rejected SOM. It's been coming on for a while and is fairly > common. Hegel, Heidegger, Dewey, to name a few. SOM is criticized in > textbooks and in journal articles. Really, the intellect is not locked into > those metaphysical assumptions. > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Hotmail has tools for the New Busy. Search, chat and e-mail from your inbox. > http://www.windowslive.com/campaign/thenewbusy?ocid=PID28326::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:WM_HMP:042010_1 > 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/md/archives.html > 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/md/archives.html
