From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Thu Jul 28 2005 - 08:54:31 BST
Hi Bo,
Good to have you back on the forum. I trust you were refreshed by your
contemplation of the fjords :o)
> First, thanks Sam for your input regarding terrorism and the
> terrorists. I agree deeply.
I'm sure that conversation will run and run.
> Have you too been talking about intellect? With whom?
Off and on with everyone, always! I was off-list for a few months this year
(and last) so I miss out on some conversations.
> Yes, I had great hopes for your eudaimonic idea, but it did not go
> to the needed length.
Care to expand on that?
> I skip about the lower levels because our notion of intellect
> determines our view of those. You too seem to harbour the
> standard view of intellect as the realm of ideas with mathematical
> equations as its epitome .
Nah - that's just, as I explained to Scott, because if I can make my point
in that field, it would be straightforward elsewhere. As it happens I think
the 'elsewhere' vastly more important and interesting.
> That I disagree with this is no news, IMO a better example of an
> intellectual pattern is your own question: "How does the
> intellectual pattern 'E=MC˛' respond to DQ? ...etc.
>
> Here we recognize intellect's: How does things (objectively seen)
> work? What mechanisms are at work when object A interacts with
> B ...etc. something the social level (f.ex.) isn't interested in as no
> mechanisms are needed over there. Its existence is spiritual,
> magical perhaps (I hope it conveys the meaning).
How about mythological (for the social level)?
> The E=MC2 equation in itself, out of any context is like 2+2=4 a
> logic arrangement and part of language's structure. But of course
> what led up to it is intellect (as science) Knowledge of light's
> velocity, of mass as energy .
What I'm interested in is the perception of one pattern as of higher quality
than another.
> Regarding the two E=MC sentences respective quality I guess
> the part about the speed of light being squared instead of "cubed"
> (is that what you say?) showed up in Einstein's calculations and
> thus was a logical fall-out. A pre-intellect cave-dweller would
> surely have seen the illogic if two and two pebbles ended up as
> five pebbles.
But it seems to me that the perception of truth is much more difficult than
this makes it seem. On this forum, with our interminable debates, it is
either the case that some people simply don't function intellectually (which
I don't believe for a moment to be true, but seems to be the presupposition
behind much of the dismissal and abuse of alternative viewpoints) or else
the acceptance of truth is a difficult process which requires, frankly,
moral work to perceive. Wittgenstein put it well: "What makes a subject hard
to understand - if it's something significant and important - is not that
before you can understand it you need to be specially trained in abstruse
matters, but the contrast between understanding the subject and what most
people want to see. Because of this the very things which are most obvious
may become the hardest of all to understand. What has to be overcome is a
difficulty having to do with the will, rather than with the intellect."
(Wittgenstein, 1931)
> Because your question is S/O-patterned, science gives the
> answers how higher (I like "more complex") patterns grows and
> latches. Biology about biological evolution, sociology about social
> evolution. When it comes to intellect itself only the SOL view of it
> works. Intellect does not see itself as any Q-evolutionary level,
> but as a subject that delivers answers about an objective world,
> only from the MOQ this picture is seen.
>
> How things objectively works is S/O-intellect's business and has
> no interest for a non-S/O metaphysics. The MOQ just postulates
> that a Q-development is at work at all levels - intellect included.
Ah, but here I disagree, and I think RMP had it right when he pointed out
that s/o science has nothing to say about the honesty on which scientific
research depends. What the MoQ (or, perhaps, a _eudaimonic_ MoQ <grin>) has
the potential to do is integrate the scientific investigation with wider
human life. Buddha in the pistons of an engine and all that.
> I look forward to comparing notes.
me too. tata.
Sam
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 : Thu Jul 28 2005 - 09:12:25 BST