On 5 Mar 2002 at 14:58, Wim Nusselder wrote:
> Dear Bo,
> You wrote 5/3 9:48 +0100:
> 'my "crusade" to get Q-intellect reigned in under the general value of
> S/O (the ability to divide what is objective from what is subjective
> is REASON)'.
> If you thus amend your SOLAQI-idea
> from 'Quality Intellect = Subject Object Divide' (as I understood it
> until now) via 'Quality Intellect = the ability to divide what is
> objective from what is subjective' into 'the Moral Basic Principle [as
> Marco introduced the expression 10/2 14:11 +0100] of Quality Intellect
> = the value of dividing objective from subjective' it becomes much
> more acceptable for me.
Hi Wim
I seem to have misled you - and possibly other - by not using the "ability to divide..."
instead of merely stating Intellect=S/O, but that is what I have meant all the time.
> 'The value of dividing objective from
> subjective' can be integrates with the moral principle Rog suggested
> 23/2 13:32 -0500 as foundation of the 4th level (the value of
> 'understanding') and my slightly adapted version of 3/3 0:00 +0100
> (the value of 'reflecting before acting').
I vaguely recall that Roger forwarded a principle for Intellect in the "reasonable" trend,
Scott and Horse (?) expressed it outrightly as REASON, while Platt's "thinking is better
than feeling " comes very close to your own "value of reflecting before acting", but in
my opinion all these express "the value of objectivity over subjectivity". Don't you think?
> If -as I suggested- the
> moral principle that founds the social level is the value of proven
> practices, the intellectual level makes the exception that you CAN do
> better (than traditional practices allow you do) IF you understand
> what you are doing and why, in other words if you reflect before you
> act. Dividing objective from subjective is (until now) the dominant
> way of understanding (reflecting on) why some practices are more
> succesful than others. Dividing Dynamic from static is indeed a
> rebellious way of understanding and reflection.
Exactly! The Quality Metaphysics springs from Subject/Object Metaphysics in the sense
that the former applied SOM's division method to form its own Dynamic/Static divide,
but from that moment on it became a SOM outcast. In moqish: ...became a rebel
intellectual pattern.
> If you take the whole list of moral principles, every next principle
> makes an exception to the earlier one: 1. the value of lasting 2. the
> value of adapting 3. the value of proven practices 4. the value of
> reflecting before acting Biological value says: 'it is best to last
> (to have physical stability), UNLESS you can adapt (genetically) to
> new circumstances'. Social value says: 'it is best to adapt
> genetically, UNLESS proven practices (material culture) enable you to
> adapt better'. Intellectual value says: 'it is best to apply proven
> practices, UNLESS you can think of something that will work better,
> because you understand how things work'.
Nice job, but a bit cumbersome, particularly re. Intellect. I don't know if the "principle" is
different from what the VALUE is? Anyway I want something very simple and have
found it in the "S/O divide" (the value of ....naturally) because this is what the Q-
Intellect is all about.
> What exception will the next level make to the value of
> understanding/reflecting? In my opinion the MoQ does not make such an
> exception yet.
If one calls intellect's value "understanding/reflecting" it says very little (the proverbial
cave-dwellers understood their world and reflected upon things) and in this sense the
MOQ is just another idea, but in my SOL-interpretation Intellect is the S/O-divide, and
the Quality Idea (which has taken over the "M") cannot be an "ordinary" S/O-pattern. It's
exceptional unto incomprehensibility!
> It is just another way of understanding/reflecting. Do
> you agree by now that your SOLAQI-idea does not imply that the MoQ
> means the founding of a new level?
OK a 5th level is superflous, a "rebel" intellectual pattern goes a long way.
May I add that few seem to realize the enormity of a metaphysics. Once such a claim is
made (and accepted) it "crystallize" everything - past and future - nothing is left
standing. I think you spotted foul play with DMB's use of the mythological past as being
the source of the Quality Metaphysics because if so, THAT becomes a Metaphysics of
Myth (MOM)
Anyway, thanks Wim
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:57 BST