> As I see it, mind
> is pure abstraction, while matter involves PERCEPTION of patterns and
> thus also contains abstraction.
Seems to me that both involve perception. All perception is intentional.
Humans are just more accustomed to our minds. I'm pretty used to the patterns
of my mind. My concept of the non-intellectual PoV is very much based on
perception as well. I focus on different aspects of my experiences (or reality)
based on my activity and environment. I think most people do. Why do say that
mind and matter differ in this?
Glen
Jonathan B. Marder wrote:
>
> Bo and Squad
>
> >You always put things in perspective and deserves no kick rather a
> >pat. For instance your pointing to Quality metaphysics as
> >Intellectual patterns - and as such part of itself in the dizziying
> >TV camera example - is a showstopper (you and Magnus ran into
> >it some time ago), and if that is the final word, it is back to SOM's
> >idealism: mind containing it all. Are you really comfortable with
> >that?
>
> I'm definitely not comfortable with an Intellectual level consisting
> only of SO thought (which is what I understand SOTAQI to mean). The TV
> screen was to make the point about IntPoVs having a special recursive
> property.
>
> >And don't you at least see the reason for my kicking and
> >screaming since day one that Q-Intellect is not SOM's "mind". MIND is
> >no more equal to IntPoV than MATTER is equal to Inorganic patterns.
>
> We never (since I joined) had a programme to discuss the mind/matter
> split so we may have quite different understandings. As I see it, mind
> is pure abstraction, while matter involves PERCEPTION of patterns and
> thus also contains abstraction. I'm not sure if Mind-Matter is
> necessarily completely synonymous with SOM. To me SOM's "mind" is the
> dialectic (SO thought) - call it SOTAM (subject-object thought as mind)
> if you like, though I'm sure you won't.
> In a sense, SOM *is* a strawman, since no-one really uses pure SO
> thought. If SOM provided a watertight thought system, this would greatly
> reduce the relevance of Pirsig's books.
> I previously pointed to OCCAM'S RAZOR (a fundamental rule in scientific
> thought) as a SOM platypus. That states that the "correct" explanation
> is always the simplest explanation which is consistent with
> observations. I don't think that is very objective! It opens the door to
> judgement and intuition which are just as important as the dialectic. I
> would consider all this as part of intellect. As I see it Pirsig wasn't
> objecting to the dialectic, but to a dialectic which ignores its origins
> and context.
>
> >A friendly kick to Jonathan again
>
> I know it's all friendly. Anyway, I think that you missed :-)
> ...
> >I don't have Pirsig's backing; his former reply to
> >Anthony McWatt that Q-intellect is "the mental" looks ominous, but
> >more on this in the - still - coming reply to Jonathan.
>
> I look forward to this Bo. It may clear up a lot of our apparent
> differences.
>
> Jonathan
>
> homepage - http://www.moq.org
> queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
> unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
> body of email
>
> homepage - http://www.moq.org
> queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
> unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
> body of email
homepage - http://www.moq.org
queries - mailto:moq@moq.org
unsubscribe - mailto:majordomo@moq.org with UNSUBSCRIBE MOQ_DISCUSS in
body of email
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:02:34 BST