Re: MD A bit of reasoning

From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 08 2004 - 18:30:50 BST

  • Next message: David Morey: "Re: MD A book for the post-SOM enlighhtened"

    Scott

    Do we need an Intellect/intellect distiction?

    Where intellect is human and dominated by symbol usage
    and Intellect is any making of SQ by DQ that is purposeful
    and valu driven rather than contingent.

    DM
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: "Scott Roberts" < >
    To: < >
    Sent: Wednesday, September 08, 2004 12:11 AM
    Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning

    > Platt,
    >
    > > I like it, but have some suggestions. You omitted a key component--an
    > > individual PERSON who does the thinking and responding to DQ. (See
    > inserts
    > > in caps to your reasoning.) Also, I've changed No. 4 because you
    > > inadvertently repeated "static intellectual patterns of value," creating
    > a
    > > contradiction, and I eliminated the idea that "thought grows plants"
    > > because thought as Pirsig defines it (collection and manipulation of
    > > symbols) is limited to humans. (Plants can't read Lila.) Finally, I
    > > reached a different conclusion.
    >
    > I am disagreeing with the notion that intellect only happens in people, so
    > I am declining your suggestions :-). Plants can't read Lila, but they can
    > -- or their species can -- read the soil they are in, match bits of it
    with
    > the pattern of "nutrition" and so take it in and grow. Also, DQ can't
    > change a lizard into a bird, but it can take the idea of a lizard and use
    > it to build the idea of a bird (with, no doubt, a lot of trial and error,
    > for which particulars provide feedback, and maybe not even knowing what it
    > is building until it gets built -- I'm not trying to support the usual
    > Intelligent Design argument here).
    >
    > > Have a missed the point of your reasoning? Perhaps your original text
    > > about "thought growing plants" is key to your whole approach, i.e., the
    > > universe is one big thought.
    >
    > I think so. See my response to Mel for more elaboration on the
    > all-important first point. "Thought growing plants" might be a little hard
    > to take, but I see it as a way of saying that plants grow not through
    > mechanical processes but by matching the particulars of their environment
    > to general patterns. Embryos grow to be adults by having the pattern of
    > adulthood (or at least the next stage on the way to adulthood) available,
    > and so can channel nutrients and split into specialized cells
    appropriately.
    >
    > - Scott
    >
    >
    >
    > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > Mail Archives:
    > Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > Nov '02 Onward -
    http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > MD Queries -
    >
    > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    >

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 08 2004 - 22:11:18 BST