On 27 May 2002 at 23:00, sriram25@comcast.net wrote:
(in a reply to this by me):
> >To judge requires a higher perspective IMO. It's biology that decides
> >what inorganic stuff is good food (f.ex) and it's society that
> >selects what organisms are good "citizens", and intellect that
> >chooses among social patterns. So ...accordingly, it must be
> >something "out of intellect" that can tell what are the best ideas.
> There are definitely better and worse intellectual patterns and ideas
> and no "higher" static pattern is necessary to distinguish among
> these. For a simple example, let me make the following syllogistic
> argument: All men wear hats; Socrates is a man; Therefore, Socrates
> does not wear a hat. You would consider me foolish and idiotic for
> making such an argument, and rightfully so, because it violates the
> rules of logic, a high quality intellectual pattern of value. The
> conclusion drawn does not follow from the premisses. It is an idea,
> but it is a very bad idea. A much better idea would be to change the
> last part to read, therefore Socrates wears a hat. This conclusion
> follows logically from the premisses and is therefore better. It is
> not "true" in any real, objective sense, it is just better
> intellectually. This is a very simple and obvious fallacy, but there
> are much more subtle fallacies in logic that are all based on low
> intellectual quality. Pirsig repeatedly mentions the "ad hominem"
> fallacy which means "to the person" and which was used against him due
> to his earlier insanity. In the notes to Lila's Child, he says
> logically it is irrelevant. If Joe says the sun is shining and you
> argue that Joe is insane, or Joe is a Nazi or Joe is stupid, what does
> this tell us about the condition of the sun?
Dear Sriram
As I see it such logical games aren't necessarily intellectual patterns
(the way I see q-intellect that is) We know that ancient man used
language, constructed calendars (possibly amused themselves with
word games), and made up complicated theories of their origin and
destiny?
If we take the course that this is q-intellect the social level shrinks into
an insignificant small slot between biology and intellect that we may as
well return to SOM's "mind from brain" postulate. Look Sriram, it is the
SOCIAL reality which is MOQ's show-case. Matter, Life and Intellect
can easily be compared to the SOM variants, but Society - as a reality
of its own - is truly unique, and it is here that you and so many go wrong
by equating "thinking" with q-intellect.
> All the truths of mathematics are based on intellectual value. The
> idea that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is equal to 180
> degrees is a good idea. It is much better than the conflicting idea
> that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle equals 200 degrees
> or 0 degrees or anything else. Given certain axioms and definitions
> made by Euclid, it can be shown through logical reasoning that this is
> the case, and the only reason it's accepted as true is because of it's
> intellectual quality. It is not a "higher" pattern that "decides"
> that these are good intellectual patterns, it is intellectual quality
> itself.
As said to DMB, mathematics as a discipline may be said to be
"intellectual", but geometry and other methods of calculating were
applied by ancient man long before the intellectual level came to pass.
> Similarly, both SOM and MOQ are intellectual patterns, and the MOQ is
> better. This betterness is not as easy to show as the previous
> examples here, but some of the reasons are that it explains more of
> the world and it explains it better.
The betterness of the MOQ is indisputable, but SOM can't be discarded
as an inferior intellectual pattern, the value that has given us civilization
must be retained as intellect itself, it's the QUALITY IDEA which must
leave intellect.
> It includes aspects of reality
> that were previously excluded because they didn't "fit" into the
> metaphysical system. It eliminates certain "platypi" that have never
> been explained well by SOM. There are hundreds of other reasons why
> it's better which I'm sure you know from reading and appreciating ZMM
> and Lila. The point is that a higher static level is unnecessary for
> the MOQ to be a better system of ideas.
All this I applaud, but the intellectual level as a vessel containing all
ideas and theories about existence is untenable. If Intellect is a STATIC
level (which it is) it must have some severe limitations and it is this
limitation I have tried to impose throughout my career here. Every time
such MOQ-versed persons as yourself report my hopes leap skywards
:-) but as often you go amiss in the labyrinths of the impossible intellect.
Thanks for reading.
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 - 16:02:18 BST