Re: MD Sam's Eudaimonia

From: jc (jcpryor@nccn.net)
Date: Wed Aug 17 2005 - 04:39:20 BST

  • Next message: jc: "Re: MD The MOQ in Hollywood"
  • Next message: jc: "Re: MD MOQ: Involved or on the Sideline?"

    At 3:58 PM +0800 8/13/05, ian glendinning wrote:
    >
    >We need a good definition of MoQ-Intellect.
    >(Better than Pirsig's so far.)
    >But let's not throw baby out with the bathwater.
    >
    >Ian

    Ok, seems a simple enough assignment. Intellect is defined by DQ.
    That's just my gut reaction but let's analyse it.

    Every level is DQ to the level below it and thus "defines" the level
    below. Intellect is just another level. The "level" above intellect
    is DQ. Intellect can't define itself or you get into one of those
    bootstrap thingies...

    And whether we are talking grunting man-apes or scientific abstract
    mathmatic language, it is DQ which informs our brains what is good
    and thus what is more true. DQ defines intellect. DQ drives
    intellect. Makes sense to me. Lemme keep reading and see what
    other's think. (not that THAT matters... we all know that social
    affirmation has no impact upon truth)

    jc

    PS: Hmmm... after reading more, I think I'm in agreement. Oh well.
    Popularity doesn't obviate truth either.

    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 Aug 18 2005 - 04:43:03 BST