Marco and Gang.
You wrote:
> this will be a short one, so no historical descriptions for the
> moment....
We can't have everything all the time :-)
> I must thank you again for your words. You pay a great attention to my
> posts and this is a great satisfaction for me.
Suddenly there was something that touched my Quality nerve.
> I want to anticipate your announced answer to my post scriptum, hoping
> this clarification could be of help.
I did write, but I think our differences were just as well pointed out
in this letter.
snip.....
> You again:
> <<Language was the ultimate social achievement (tool)
> that became too much for society and constituted the 'machine
> code' of the next. I call it "reason", but won't complicate this
> elegant picture by explaining that detail.>>
> Maybe it's not a detail. Your subtle shift from language to reason to
> SOM is IMO the "machine code" of our disagreement. By this, you
> immediately assume SOM as the intellectual level. At the moment I
> don't see any necessity for the terms Subject and Object. Language is
> enough. See below.
Yes, language-as-carrier-of-subject/object-eason (as Q-intellect) is
at the hub of our disagreement, so I better concentrate on it in this
my last letter.
> The consequence is that when I write:
> > And if language is the intellectual code, it's also its limit.
> > Language (in every possible forms), used to communicate (even to ourselves),
> > is the inherent characteristic of all intellectual patterns. As
> > long as we use language we can't go out from 4th level. That's why
> > we are "suspended in language". Just like my biological self is
> > "suspended in DNA", and my social self is "suspended in emotions".
Your intellectual self is suspended in language, but evolution
bypassed all other levels so why not intellect? Unless you view
language-intellect as a mindish realm.
> You answer:
> "Its limit! Write it twenty times on the blackboard ! :-) See the
> implications for our pending discussion about a development beyond
> intellect? When intellect-focussed we are suspended in 'reason' or
> SOM. Intellect is blind to any development above itself - it's
> intellect for ever."
> IMO Language is the limit, while IYO Reason (SOM) is the limit. The
> Marco/Bo split is just here!
It's here all right. Social language must necessarily be different
from intellectual language. When a social animal - a baboon -
snarls at another baboon, and when a Neanderthal did the same
and added the equivalent grunt of "f.. off" it was a social sign, but
not "intellect". Many thousand years later when the mankind proper
had refined language to the level we know it, and sat around the
camp-fire perpetuating their myths, language was still "in the
service of society". However, if a "madman" had stepped forward
and said: Look, you fools, those lights in the sky aren't gods, there
must be an objective explanation....Then and only then would the Q-
intellect have been born, but it could not be born yet, existence
was completely mythological.
It sounds like I have shifted from language to science (as intellect),
but I do most vehemently agree with language as the "machine
code" the way you describe it. In its bosom it carried the seed that
made the intellectual leap possible. But you want language itself to
be Q-intellect - after having said that it is the stepping stone out of
society. The reason for this abstract fallacy is that language with
its grammar and syntax is much like mathematics. When you
operate it, results that you did not expect pops up, and this
produces the impression of an elevated realm where truths lay in
wait for some to discover them.
> Initially the application of intellectual tools was just
> communication, then other applications came. Control of masses;
> Investigation of reality; explanation of phenomenons; religions,
> philosophies, sciences, arts.
As long as you see language as intellect itself, it produces a lot of
loose ends. If you could limit it to the "machine code" that you just
proposed social summit and the base of intellect: Good!
> Is it possible to have an intellectual pattern (made of language)
> without a subject object logic? I dare answer "yes". I suggest
> abstract art and jazz. And MOQ. And quantum physics. Eastern
> philosophies could give us other examples....
Jazz and painting?? I wouldn't deem that intellectual patterns even
if the composer and painter "think" when creating their works.
When entering intellect the 'abstract' creeps in and screws things
up. Without mockery in mind, I hope for an intellect epiphany too. .
Let me just add this. In the previous letter it sounded as if your
requirement for an "escape" from intellect had to be non-linguistic.
All levels build on - carries with them - the previous levels. DNA
(with help from Magnus I called it "Interaction") Sensation and
Emotion are still with us. Pirsig stresses that intellect (how much it
strives to look 'out of the blue'), is emotional-prone. Likewise, after
language (or my SOM/Reason) entered the scheme it will follow
evolution for ever.
Thanks for a great month everyone.
Bo.
MOQ.org - http://www.moq.org
