Re: MD Clearing up this intellectual mess

From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Wed Jun 29 2005 - 07:25:45 BST

  • Next message: ian glendinning: "Re: MD Our Immoral Supreme Court"

    Scott and other expedition members.

    27 June you wrote:

    > I don't know what you mean by "subscribe to the "intelligence"
    > definition of the intellectual LEVEL", so can't comment on it.

    I mean the skill that creatures (far down into the biological level)
    display that enables them to learn from experience. This prowess
    (intelligence called) is faultily defined as intellect.

    > On mathematics, as Coleridge and others have pointed out, mathematical
    > "objects", such as zero-dimensional points, perfectly straight and
    > width-less lines, proofs, and so on, exist only when they are thought,
    > that the thinking of them *is* the object, so there is no subject
    > working with a separate object. An ancient Egyptian knew that a
    > triangle of 3, 4, and 5 unit sides gave him a right angle. He did not
    > know that for any a, b, and c, where a^2 + b^2 = c^2 one gets a right
    > angle. He could not have the concept of an irrational number, and so
    > on.

    If If "the act of thinking" is defined as intellect and thinking about
    imaginary numbers is non-S/O intellect, then people of old -
    before intellect according to the MOQ - were intellectuals by
    thinking about how to get the next meal, and pure intellectuals if
    thinking about imaginary things, dragons and such?

    When we calculate and/or do pure mathematics it's not intellect
    but the said intelligence. It was at work when Phaedrus wielded
    his analytical knife and found that intellect is the mind/matter
    "prism". When at this MOQ site you are sort of committed to
    speak moqish, so what is your explanation for that explicit SOL
    statement in ZMM?

    > Applied mathematics is not the same as pure mathematics, and
    > calculating is applied mathematics. I do think that mathematical
    > thinking would not have arisen without more general S/O thinking, but
    > in itself, in the act of thinking, it is not S/O.

    Already these distinctions "pure/applied" and "thinking/non-
    thinking" are based on the S/O template and as you allegedly
    believe that this was no part of the Original Participation era it is
    plain that intellect as SOM corresponds to Barfield's "loss of
    partcipation".

    > Scott:
    > I do not call you a materialist. I am only pointing out that you, and
    > Pirsig, and most everybody, continue to work within a framework that
    > is only required by materialists, namely, the belief that the
    > inorganic existed all by itself, and then -- somehow -- evolved into
    > the biological, etc.

    This is also completely off mark. I know that you don't subscribe
    to the MOQ, but when at this site the least requirement is to
    understand its basics. First it rejects the S/O distinction as
    metaphysically valid and because idealism/materialism is part of
    that, it doesn't apply.

    "Framework"? If you mean language, we can hardly stop using
    words that carried a SOM-load before. "Belief ..etc." Here you
    use the term "inorganic" with the said load and think that its
    problem how matter spawned life applies to the MOQ. But
    inorganic value is something else, as is the transition to biological
    value, but ... phew ... I can't go through all that. Particularly not to
    deaf ears.

    > When you consider that all that we perceive of
    > the inorganic through our senses is created only when we sense it
    > (color, extension, etc.), and when you toss in quantum non-locality,
    > there is no reason to persist in this framework, and good reasons to
    > reject it, mainly because there is no "somehow" for sentience to arise
    > from non-sentience, intellect from non-intellect.

    Scott is on his lectern again. Don't you understand? All this is
    about inorganic "out there" and us perceiving from "in here" is
    INTELLECT the eternal objective world/the perceiving mind
    dichotomy. But the MOQ is the system of which this dichotomy is
    a mere sub-level. Speaking of pouring water over a goose, you
    aren't even willing to understand what the MOQ is about.

    Bo

    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 - 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 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 29 2005 - 07:30:00 BST